OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Rills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:

Great Eastern Railway.
Brighton and Hove Gas.
Lands Improvement Company.
Farmers Land Purchase Company.
Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company.

Ordered, That the Bills be committed.

Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Hastings Tramways Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 9th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — CURED HERRING TRADE.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that the trade in cured herring with America was on the increase before tine outbreak of war; whether any steps have been taken with a view to developing the trade with the United States and Canada: whether efforts have been made to introduced cured herrings into China and Japan; and whether, in the event of trading relations being resumed with
Russia, he will take steps to encourage the exportation of cured herrings to that country?

Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, steps are being taken to obtain reports from the countries in question as to the market for pickled herrings. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the hon. Baronet aware that I have received the answer to this question since I came into the House just now?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am quite aware of that. It is the customary courtesy of the Department to see that private Members are supplied with answers to their questions.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it not usual to issue them after the Minister has given his answer?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It could not possibly have been more than a moment or two before the hon. and gallant Gentleman heard it from this box.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a great advantage to give hon. Members the answers beforehand, so that they may prepare supplementary questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TAUNTON REMOUNT DEPARTMENT.

Colonel ASHLEY: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War why Captain W. W. Shore, who was appointed by the War Office superintendent of the Taunton Remount Depôt, and held that position from the 29th November, 1914, until the 15th September, 1915, on which date it was transferred from civilian to military control, has been paid no gratuity for that period of his service, in view of the fact that it is clearly and definitely laid down in War Office Circular 116. Remounts Depôts, 373 (Q.M.G.4), that he is entitled to receive it?

The PARLAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): I will look into the question.

ARMY PAY OFFICE, NOTTINGHAM.

Lord H. CAVEND1SH-BENTINCK: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Army Pay Office, who entered into occupation of the national ordnance factory, New Basford, Nottingham, six months ago, are hampered in their work by the fact that quantities of machinery still remain in the building; and whether he will give instructions for the immediate removal of the machinery in order that the work of the Pay Office may be concentrated on these premises and other premises in Nottingham still in the occupation of the military may be freed for industrial purposes?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Representations have been made to the Ministry of Munitions with a view to the removal of the machinery in the New Basford factory, and when this is done it will be possible for the Pay Office to vacate other premises in Nottingham. I am informed that 560 out of 600 machines have been removed during the last two months, and I understand that it is expected that the remaining 40 machines will be cleared at a very early date.

EAST FORTUNE AIR STATION.

Mr. JOHN HOPE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can state the intentions of the Government in regard to East Fortune air station?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Major Tryon): I have been asked to reply to this question. This station is being closed down and as soon as the stores have been removed it will be handed over to the Disposal Board.

MOTOR VEHICLES.

Viscount CURZON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the establishment motor vehicles for the use of the Army and Royal Air Force for peace purposes have yet been laid down; if so, can the number be stated; and what is the number of motor vehicles and motor cycles now in use by the Army and Royal Air Force in Great Britain, in France, and in the occupied area?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The number of mechanical transport vehicles for peace establishments of the Army has not yet
been finally laid down, but it has been decided to retain 6,855 four-wheeled and 1,516 two-wheeled mechanical transport vehicles in all theatres (except India) during 1920–21. There are in all theatres (except India) 16,421 four-wheeled and 6,562 two-wheeled vehicles still borne on War Department charge, but it is impossible to state the actual number in use in the various theatres.
As regards the Air Force, the peace establishment of mechanical transport vehicles will be approximately 1,176 four-wheeled vehicles and 348 motor-cycles. The approximate numbers in use in the countries mentioned are:

Four-wheeled vehicles.
Motor-cycles.


Home
…
2,058
1,037


France
…
150
38


Germany
…
40
12

ARMY BANDSMEN.

Mr. JESSON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he proposes to take any action to prevent Army bands and bandsmen, who are paid for out of the taxes, from accepting private engagements at summer resorts and other places, having regard to the fact that, while their playing is a side line for the Army bands, they are throwing civilian musicians out of employment at Eastbourne, Hastings, Bath, and other places, and that such civilians, many of whom are discharged and demobilised service men, draw unemployed pay from the State?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on the 4th November last, in which I stated that it was not proposed to alter the existing Regulations. As regard individual bandsmen, the Regulations do not interfere with the spare time of a soldier.

Mr. JESSON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of his undertaking that Army bands would not be allowed to undersell civilian bands and musicians, he will give the substance of the Report he received from the Eastbourne borough accountant in reference to the employment of Army bands and state whether he made any inquiries from the musicians' trade union concerned; and if he will give a list of the various sums paid to the individual bandsmen, so that hon. Members may be in a position
to judge and to express an opinion as to whether the Fair-Wages Clause of the Eastbourne Corporation has been violated by the employment of Army bands to the detriment of civilian musicians?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The report from the Eastbourne Borough Accountant disproves the suggestion that Army bands have been engaged at Eastbourne because they can be obtained more cheaply than civilian bands; the figures show that Army bands have been paid higher rates. I shall be pleased to show the hon. Member the report, should he care to see it.

DEMOBILISATION (CAPTAIN R. G. SMITH, ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS).

Mr. ROYCE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a cable was sent to Mesopotamia in May last ordering the demobilisation of Captain R. Gillespie Smith, Royal Army Medical Corps; and if so, why was the order not carried out, and can he state if this officer is still in Mesopotamia?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. A cablegram was, however, sent to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Mesopotamia, asking that Captain Gillespie Smith should be sent home as soon as his services could be spared. According to the latest information in the Department, he is still serving in Mesopotamia.

BRITISH TROOPS IN FRANCE.

Major GLYN: 24.
asked upon whose authority the figure of 11,000 men of the 32,000 troops at present in France are stated to be employed in handling, storage, movement, and guarding of surplus stores; whether, as far as the Disposals Board are concerned, 5,500 men are considered adequate; and of the remaining 21,000 troops, according to the War Office figures, how many are engaged in the work of graves registration, &c., find how many are engaged in the repatriation of railway material, road transport, &c., under War Office arrangements?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The figure of 11,000 men was given by the General Officer Commanding British troops in France and Flanders. A joint travelling Committee, on which the War Office and Ministry of Munitions are represented, are now at
work verifying this figure. The second part of the question should be addressed to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions. As regards the last part, 15,000 men are employed on Graves Registration duties, and 770 men on the repatriation of railway wagons and other railway duties.

Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the paraphernalia of war between Calais and Lille will be disposed of?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That question should be addressed to the Ministry of Munitions, who are responsible for the Disposals Board.

QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.

Mr. CAIRNS: 27.
asked whether the women telegraphists in the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps enlisted for the duration of war; whether he is aware that these conditions were precisely similar to those under which the men enlisted, and that members of the Voluntary Aid Detachment, nursing sisters, and Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps' doctors received a retention bonus and gratuity on discharge; and whether, in these circumstances, he will explain the refusal to pay a retention bonus and gratuity on discharge to the women telegraphists who did such excellent service with the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: As regards the bonus, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for West Bromwich on the 16th instant. As regards gratuity, no member of the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps is eligible for it.

PURCHASE OF DISCHARGE.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War how soon the suspension of a soldier's right to purchase his discharge will be removed; and will he see that when this takes place, in cases where the time within which such claims should have been made has expired owing to this suspension, the soldier's right is not prejudiced thereby?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Purchase of discharge from the Army will be re-opened as from the 30th April, by which date the last conscript will have been released from the Army. The soldier's right to
purchase his discharge under paragraph 392 (v) of the King's Regulations will not be prejudiced if he has given the requisite notice.

Colonel ASHLEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the scale of charges is the same as pre-war?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, unless any new notification is made on that separate point.

BRITISH OFFICERS IN SHANGHAI.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: (by private notice)
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that British officers to the number of nearly 100 of the Labour Corps and from Siberia are detained at Shanghai unable to obtain passages to England before October next: that they are unable to obtain any pay at Shanghai, and that the detention allowances at the present rate of exchange are equal to only two dollars per day, while the lowest possible hotel accommodation in the British Concession costs seven dollars per day: whether he is aware that the likelihood of these officers becoming dependent on charity unless something is immediately done for them is considered by the British residents in Shanghai to be not only a hardship on the officers concerned, but a serious detriment to British prestige in China; and whether to meet the difficulty he will arrange for the officers in question to be moved to military quarters at Hong Kong, and authorise the local authorities to make advances at their discretion to these officers to meet their present needs?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: This is the first intimation that the War Office has received of this matter. I will have enquiry made at once, and see what can be done.

Mr. HERBERT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the telegram, copy of which I sent to the Secretary of State for War, has been received from an officer in His Majesty's Army holding high rank, who has been well-known as a prominent person in Shanghai for a great many years, and may be thoroughly depended upon?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I was not aware of the source of the cable, but the matter will be seen to immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

ATTACK ON MOTOR LORRY, DUBLIN.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any details as to the holding up of an Army motor lorry containing soldiers in Berkeley Road, Dublin, on the 12th February; and whether the soldiers were in possession of their rifles and ammunition at the time?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The motor van was conveying two officers and three men from Ship Street Barracks to Marlborough Barracks. The officers were members of a Court Martial and were returning from the trial. One of the men was in arrest and the other two composed the escort. None of the officers or men was armed. The officers were seated beside the driver, the three men being within the van. On arriving at the junction of Blessington Street and Nelson Street, a small hand truck, with long ladders and scaffold poles, was suddenly run across the street, blocking all traffic, and compelling the driver of the motor van to pull up. The van was immediately surrounded by 25 or 30 men all armed with revolvers, three of whom jumped on to the steps of the van pointing revolvers at the faces of the officers, whilst another man got into the van. The officers were told to stop in the car, but they got down and went to the back to see what was happening, and found the three soldiers surrounded by armed civilians. A shot was fired and a man, believed to be one of the assailants, fell to the ground. Both officers heard some of the civilians say, "He is not here," and they were then told they could go on. Both officers, who are men of proved courage, state definitely that they were not ordered to hold up their hands and that they did not do so.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask the Secretary of State whether any orders are now being issued that when the military move about on escort or any other duty in Dublin they should be armed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That was the con elusion that occurred to me on reading this account, but I have not sufficient knowledge of local conditions to form a final opinion. I have directed this morning that a letter should be written to the Irish command enquiring whether regulations to that effect should not immediately be issued
because I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that insults to the King's uniform cannot be tolerated.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Was the escort armed with ball cartridge or merely with side arms?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They were not armed at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — VENEZUELA (COMMERCIAL TREATY).

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made with the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Venezuelan Government for the conclusion of a new commercial treaty; and whether the Venezuelan Government have yet expressed their willingness to abrogate the sur-tax of 30 per cent. imposed on imports into Venezuela from the West Indies and British Guiana?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Negotiations with the Venezuelan Government in connection with the proposed conclusion of a new commercial treaty are still proceeding; the reply to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH MINISTER).

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIES: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to appoint an ambassador to represent Great Britain at Washington?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is hoped that an appointment may shortly be made.

Lieut. - Colonel MURRAY: May we take it that there is no truth in the rumour that the President of the Board of Trade is going to be appointed?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My answer is that it is hoped that the appointment may shortly be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

PASSPORTS.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs what regulations now control the issue of passports to Finland, Esthonia, Sweden or Denmark; whether the Passport Office ever declines to endorse passports to any of these countries; and for what reason?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Applications for passports are considered on their merits and passports are issued for the countries referred to in cases where a satisfactory reason for travelling is established and where it is not considered to be contrary to the public interest that they should be granted.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Before granting these passports are any guarantees extracted from the applicants that they will not proceed to Russia or any other country?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As I said in my answer, applications are considered on their merits, therefore each individual case is considered on its merits.

ADMIRAL KOLTCHAK'S GOVERNMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any treaties or agreements were entered into between His Majesty's Government and the self-constituted governing body presided over by the late Admiral Koltchak; and what, in view of Admiral Koltchak's decease, is now the position of these agreements?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No treaties or agreements were entered into between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the late Admiral Koltchak, unless the hon. and gallant Member refers to the well-known exchange of notes which took place in May, 1919, which may be considered to have lapsed with the disappearance of the Government with whom they were exchanged.

BRITISH SUBJECTS IN ODESSA.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects have remained in Odessa and district since its occupation by the Soviet army; how many of these have remained of their own free will; and whether arrangements were made for their evacuation before the arrival of the Soviet army?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The total number of British subjects who remained in
Odessa was 43, and my information is that all stayed of their own free will. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

REPUBLICS (RECOGNITION).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the Government gave de facto recognition to the dependent republics of Georgia, Armenia (Eriwan), and Azerbidjian; whether, in accordance with such recognition, official representatives have been exchanged between this country and those republics; whether the boundaries of these, three States have been fixed provisionally; and will he have placed in the Tea Room of the House a map showing the provisional boundaries of these States?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Instructions were sent to the British Chief Commissioner for the Caucasus on January 10th to inform the Georgian and Azerbaijan Governments that the Allied Powers re presented on the Supreme Council had decided to grant de facto recognition to Georgia and Azerbaijan, but that this decision did not prejudge the question of their respective boundaries; a similar telegram regarding the Eriwan Republic of Armenia was sent on January 21st. There has been no change in representation as a result of this recognition; as before, His Majesty's Government have a British Chief Commissioner for the Caucasus with headquarters at Tiflis, and the three Republics have their accredited representatives in London. The boundaries of the three States have been provisionally fixed between themselves, but a great deal of territory is in dispute. A map will be placed in the Tea Boom showing approximately the provisional boundaries of the three Republics.

EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if an agreement has been arrived at with regard to the exchange of prisoners with Russia; if so, will he arrange for the agreement to be laid upon the Table of the House; if the agreement is in similar terms as regards the classes and numbers of British and Russian prisoners, respectively, to be exchanged; and if he will state whether it provides for the cost of the repatriation
of Russian prisoners in neutral countries to be borne by Great Britain?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The reply to the first three parts of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the fourth, His Majesty's Government have undertaken to render every possible assistance so far as sea transport is concerned, if it should become necessary to do so for the repatriation of Russian Nationals who are at present either prisoners in, or unable to leave, various neutral countries, subject to the consent of those Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATY (KURDISH STATE).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Kurdish leader has recently made representations to the Allied High Commissioner in Constantinople, or to the Turkish Government, with regard to the establishment of a separate autonomous Kurdish State: whether the Government can make any statement regarding the possibility of a Kurdish national movement and their policy towards it should it reach the stage of practical politics; and whether the Kurdish leader in Constantinople represents any considerable number of Kurdish tribes?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In view of the fact that the future of Kurdistan is at the present moment under discussion by the Peace Conference in London, I regret that I am unable to make any statement on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CONSULS (WAR MEDALS).

Colonel YATE: 23.
asked whether British consuls who served abroad in the war zones during the war will be granted the war medal in recognition of their services?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

MASSAGE SERVICE.

Viscountess ASTOR: 25.
asked on what grounds war gratuities, although granted to members of Queen Alexandra's Im-
perial Military Nursing Service and to members of voluntary aid detachments serving in military hospitals, should be refused to members of the Military Massage Service, a corps of trained women performing services in hospitals in every way equivalent to those mentioned?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Moss Side on the 12th instant.

CHAPLAINS.

Colonel YATE: 30.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what outfit allowance and what gratuity has been granted to chaplains on the British establishment employed on service?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The amount of outfit allowance and gratuity varies according to the terms of service. The particulars are lengthy and, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the Statement referred to:—

Chaplains fall under three classes:—(1) Those holding permanent regular commissions. (2) Those holding commissions in the Territorial Force, (3) Those who were granted temporary commissions for the period of the Great War.

Outfit Allowance.—Officers of all these classes who were commissioned after 4th August, 1914, and those of Class (2), whenever they were commissioned, received the following grants in respect of the Croat War:—Outfit allowance, £22 10s.; camp kit allowance (when such kit was required), £7 10s. Officers in Class (1) received nothing in respect of the War.

Gratuity.—(1) Received War gratuity according to rank at same rates as combatant officers (Army Order 85 of 1919). (2) Received gratuity under Article 497 Pay Warrant. (3) Served under special contracts which provided for a gratuity of 60 days' pay for each year or part of a year of satisfactory service during the emergency.

ROYAL ENGINEERS (K COMPANY).

Mr. CAIRNS: 49.
asked the Prime. Minister whether the case concerning the men of K Company, Royal Engineers, has
been brought to his notice; whether he is aware that the Holt Parliamentary Committee reported unanimously in favour of the men being allowed to count the whole of their Government service for pension purposes; whether the Treasury have so far declined to carry this recommendation into effect; and whether, having regard to the hardship which is threatened to the men concerned, he will personally investigate the claim put forward on behalf of the men?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): After the very fullest consideration it has been decided that this proposal cannot be accepted, and I can hold out no hope that the decision can be reversed. Service in K Company was military service, and the men of the company were in receipt of military pay and allowances. In these circumstances it cannot be admitted that the men have any equitable claim to reckon this service for civil pension, and it could not be so reckoned without further legislation. His Majesty's Government see strong objection in principle to reckoning military service for civil pension, which would confer on the ex-soldier who enters the Civil Service a benefit not enjoyed by his fellow soldiers who enter private employment, and they are not able to propose such legislation to this House.

PRE-WAR SERVICE PENSIONS.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the position of the pre-war pensioners by increasing the pensions to these old soldiers and sailors who served in the Army and Navy previous to the last War, and whose pensions have not been increased notwithstanding the high cost of living?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I cannot add anything to what I said yesterday in reply to supplementary questions arising out of a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving increased pensions to those people who are receiving pensions under £100 a year?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government, like everyone else, have great sympathy
with these people, but it is all a question of what the taxpayer can afford to pay. Although the hardship is great it is not greater than that of many others in civil life.

Colonel WARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that these men have done something to deserve the gratitude of the country, and that it is a shame, and great disadvantage to recruiting for the new Volunteer Army, that old soldiers should be left in a condition of absolute poverty?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that I do think it a great hardship, but it cannot affect recruiting, for there has certainly been no breach of any undertaking in regard to these men. The difficulty is that it is quite impossible to give increased pensions to one class, even soldiers, without extending it to the whole

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If the right hon. Gentleman is approached by a sufficient number of Members of the House will he give a date for the discussion of the question of pre-War pensioners?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think I can do that. There are many opportunities, and there have been many opportunities when this has been discussed.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Do not we owe exactly the same debt of gratitude to the old soldiers and sailors who fought in the Great War?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We all owe the same debt of gratitude to the civilians also, yet we have not tried to raise the rates of pensions of these classes.

Sir F. HALL: Were not these pensions granted for services rendered in order that the pensioners might live properly in retirement, and, in view of the enormous increase in the cost of living and the depreciated value of the pension, cannot the Government take into consideration the whole of these pensions?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is really more a matter for argument.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.

REDUCTION OF ARMAMENTS CLAUSES.

Sir F. HALL: 29.
asked whether Germany has yet complied with the pro-
visions of the Peace Treaty under which she is called upon immediately to reduce her Army to 200,000 and subsequently to 100,000; if not, will he state what is the number of men which it would at the present time be possible for Germany to equip and place in the field; what steps are being taken to enforce this important part of the treaty; and will he state whether under the treaty the Allies possess any and, if so, what powers of inspection of armament and munitions works in Germany to ensure that she shall not be in a position at any time to provide equipment in excess of that required for the reduced Army allowed by the treaty?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Under Article 163 of the Peace Treaty the German Army has to be reduced to 200,000 men by the 10th April, 1920. A gradual reduction to this figure is now in progress. There is no provision in the Peace Treaty calling for an immemediate reduction to 200,000 men. On the recommendation of Marshal Foch, the Supreme Council have decided and notified the German Government that the subsequent reduction to 100,000 men must be effected by the 10th July, 1920.
At the present time only the Regular Army (Reichswehr) of 250,000 men is completely equipped and in every way fit or ready to take the field. The reduction of the German Army is being supervised by the Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control, which entered upon its functions on the 10th January, 1920. The execution of the Air Clauses is being controlled simultaneously by the Aeronautical Inter-Allied Commission of Control. Ample powers are given to these Commissions in the Peace Treaty, Articles 203–210. Articles 204 to 208 provide for the inspection of all armament and munition works in Germany, and for the reduction of war material to the scale allowed by the Treaty. The manufacture of arms, munitions and war material, is dealt with in Article 168, the effective control if which is one of the duties of the Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control.

Sir F. HALL: Under the circumstances, may the country feel satisfied that the arrangement entered into by the Peace Treaty for the reduction of the German Army and the compliance with other Sections of the Treaty, are being strictly
adhered to, and that the Government will carefully look after the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Broadly speaking, I think that is so. Of course, the whole subject has to be watched from day to day, and the Military Inter-Allied Commission, with Marshal Foch at the head, is far and away the best instrument that could be devised for watching the execution of the Treaty Clauses.

Colonel ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to look after the small arms and artillery of the German Army as it is being demobilised, and will the fact be borne in mind that these are trained men, and that if these arms are available for them there is not much use in demobilising them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot, without full notice, answer questions of that detail in regard to a Treaty which is being administered under the Inter-Allied Commission; but I think the House would be justified in putting its confidence in the action of the Commission, which is presided over by the most distinguished soldier of the Allied Armies.

Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHER: Are the Supreme Council taking special precautions against the secret building of war planes or parts of war planes?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer that without notice, but I feel confident that the Inter-Allied Commission will safeguard the full execution of the Treaty. I am bound to say that we have not seen so far any recalcitrant disposition on the part of the German Government who are, in fact, carrying out a great many clauses which must be obnoxious to them to the best of their ability.

Sir F. HALL: May we understand that the Government are taking particular care to see that the civilian forces, or forces of a civilian nature, are not being trained and banded together and provided with arms in order that they may, in the event of some remote emergency, be practically on all fours with trained soldiers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, those are matters which fall within the scope of the Commission's duties, and if the Commission does not deal adequately with them it will have been guilty of a great failure.

WOMEN (EMPLOYMENT).

Viscount CURZON: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether the Air Ministry are now employing women in any area to discharge the duties formerly carried out by the Women's Royal Air Force?

Major TRYON: About 300 women are at present employed on work of a character similar to that formerly carried out by members of the Women's Royal Air Force. The employment of women is restricted to cases where, in view of the temporary nature of the work, the expense and delay of training male personnel to replace them is not considered justifiable.

Viscount CURZON: Is it intended to continue the employment of these women in these posts; and, if so, for how long?

Major TRYON: The shortness of time makes it of very little good to attempt to employ disabled soldiers, who would lose their work shortly after they had found it

POLAND.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 32.
asked the composition and size of the British Air Force Missions and units now in Poland; and what duties they are carrying out?

Major TRYON: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is that there are no British Air Force Missions or units in Poland. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Are we to assume that there are no volunteers, either officers or men, serving in the Polish army?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member can assume that the question is correctly answered. If he wishes to raise a different point, he had better put the question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — THEATRICAL MANAGERS (LICENCES).

Viscount CURZON: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now prepared to take any action with reference to the licensing of touring theatrical managers on the lines suggested by the London County Council?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am afraid I do not see my way to introduce legislation requiring the licensing of touring theatrical managers

Sir R. COOPER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the enormous injury that is going on under the present system? Can he not take some further steps to safeguard the best interests of the country in this matter?

Mr. SHORTT: The matter is being considered and consultation is going on with the theatrical representatives.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS TO FRANCE.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is still necessary for individuals travelling to France to obtain a visé to their passports; and, if so, whether it is proposed to abolish the visé system at an early date?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is a requirement of the French authorities that a person desiring to land in France must have obtained a French visa, and the British Government has no power to abolish this rule.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this system will go on indefinitely? Will not representations be made to the French Government?

Mr. SHORTT: It is not the duty of my Department to do that.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Whose duty is it?

Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. Member to the Leader of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the Leader of the House make representations to the French Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not see exactly why my right hon. Friend should have appealed to me. It is a question for the Foreign Office.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why is it that the French Government are so reluctant to allow English people to go to France? What have we done?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better ask that of the French Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIRLS (IMPRISONMENT).

Major HILLS: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Hilda Mills, aged 16, a shop assistant at Balham, bearing a good character, 2½ years in one situation, charged at the South Western Police Court on 2nd February with theft and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, which she is now serving in Holloway, and to the case of Edith Winifred Kennett, aged 15, no previous offence, good school character, charged with stealing, also at the South Western Police Court, placed in a remand home and then removed to Holloway to await removal to an industrial school on the charge of assisting another girl to escape, and whether, in view of the undesirability of young girls of previously good character being sent to prison, even on remand, he will explain why in each of these cases probation was not resorted to.

Mr. SHORTT: I find on inquiry that in the first case mentioned the magistrate remanded Hilda Mills and another girl charged with her on bail for three months, and that at the end of this period he felt able to discharge the other defendant, but on the evidence before him he considered that in the case of Hilda Mills a sharp sentence was necessary. I am not prepared to say he was mistaken in this view of the case.
I have also made inquiry as to the case of Edith Winifred Kennett, and I find that the girl's school record was bad, and when she was charged the mother declined to bail her and she was sent to a remand home. In the remand home she refused to obey the rules and incited other girls to rebellion. When she again came before the Court the mother declined to have her home again, and the magistrate decided in her own interest to send her to a reformatory. The mother has now expressed her willingness to have the girl home, and the question of placing her on probation is being considered.

Major HILLS: Does my right hon. Friend think it satisfactory to send children aged 15 and 16 to Holloway prison?

Mr. SHORTT: There is a great deal that is unsatisfactory about our criminal law. We must only do the best we can to remedy it.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: When do you propose to take any steps to remedy the unsatisfactory state of the criminal law? Are you doing anything at present?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You are too busy fighting Bolsheviks.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANS (DEPORTATION).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 37.
asked whether any steps were taken by the Home Office or by any other Government department to inform the public of the action which, under Section 9 of the Aliens Restriction Act of last year, would have to be taken by members of the public in order to secure the deportation of Germans and other enemy aliens from this country; and, in particular, whether any steps were taken by any Government department to inform the public that, in order to secure such deportation of a German or any other enemy alien, it was necessary for some member of the public to deliver to the Secretary of State before 23rd February, 1920, a charge or statement in writing, signed by a credible person, to the effect that the continued residence in the United Kingdom of the alien in question was, for reasons relating to the alien, undesirable in the public interest and giving particulars of the allegations upon which such reasons were based, and that if such charge was not made and proved no Germans or other enemy aliens would be deported under that section?

Mr. SHORTT: Great publicity was given to the Section by the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament and it was quite clear from its terms that any person who knew anything within the meaning of the Section against a former enemy alien might write to the Home Office. If his communication was not precisely in accordance with the Section he would have been told how to make it so, if the facts known to him admitted of it. Further, I issued instructions to all Police Forces that they should facilitate, by any necessary explanation, any representation which any person might wish to make to the Home Office. A circular was issued to the Police asking them to give every assistance, by explaining the Act and otherwise, to any person who wished to bring forward the case of any former enemy alien and reminding them that if
any police officer knew of any case, the facts of which brought it within the Section, he should himself make the application. I also arranged for a notice to appear widely in the newspaper Press to the effect that the time for sending in any such statements expired on the 23rd of the present month.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that this Bill was only passed two days before Christmas, will the right hon. Gentleman say where and how often were notices calling the attention of the public to the matter circulated?

Mr. SHORTT: The notices were printed and circulated throughout the country. I cannot say how exactly.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Were they printed in local papers, or in any paper to which the public had access?

Mr. SHORTT: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — HORSES (EXPORTATION).

Colonel BURN: 38.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that worn-out and emaciated horses are being bought for exportation to the Continent; and will he take steps to put an end to this traffic or, at any rate, insist on such a careful inspection to ensure that no horse unfit for work ever leaves this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): I have been asked to reply. The Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, as amended by the Exportation of Horses Act, 1914, prohibits the exportation of any horse, ass or mule, unless it is certified by a veterinary inspector that the animal can be shipped, and is capable of being worked without cruelty. This Act is now effectively in operation, and the class of horse referred to in the question would not pass the inspectors, who have power where necessary to order the slaughter of unfit animals. Steps have also been taken with a view to preventing the conveyance by rail to the port of animals which cannot be carried without suffering.

Colonel BURN: Does my hon. Friend know that advertisements have been inserted in the papers asking for these decrepit horses, and surely something
can be done to stop that particular practice?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am sure that the Act is being put into operation, and if my hon. and gallant Friend can give me any cases of this sort of thing happening, I will certainly cause inquiry to be made.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Does my hon. Friend realise that only the other day six out of eight horses which were being carried in a truck to Hull for exportation were—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMER TIME.

Mr. RODGER: 39.
asked the Home Secretary if he can now announce the dates during which Summer Time will be in operation this year?

Mr. SHORTT: It is proposed that Summer Time should begin on the 28th March and end on the 27th September.

Mr. INSKIP: Have any reports been obtained from medical men as to the effects of Summer Time on the health of children?

Mr. SHORTT: We had a great many reports.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will Summer Time apply to Ireland this year?

Captain REDMOND: When will the curfew be rung in this country?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect of Summer Time on agriculture?

Oral Answers to Questions — REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (INSPECTORSHIPS).

Mr. BRIANT: 40.
asked the Home Secretary if the qualifications for the position of inspector of reformatory and industrial schools exclude all who are not graduates of a university; and, if so, whether, considering that many of those with most experience in work among boys have not attended a university, the positions will be thrown open to all who have the essential qualifications?

Mr. SHORTT: The appointment in question is not restricted to University
graduates, but on the occasion of a recent vacancy, as it was important to obtain a well-educated man, candidates were invited by advertisement who were graduates of a University and had served in H.M. Forces during the War. There is no difficulty in finding University candidates who have experience of social work among boys.

Mr. BRIANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that a person may be well educated who has not been to a university?

Mr. SHORTT: It is quite possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — "NEW CATHOLIC PRESS."

Mr. MACLEAN: 41.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on 9th January a detective-inspector called at the office of the "New Catholic Press" and gave instructions that none of the copies of the current issue were to be issued for sale until the authorities saw whether the issue contained anything to which they objected; whether all copies of the issues of 27th December, 3rd January, and 27th January were taken away; whether they were forbidden to sell any copies of the issue of 10th January at their peril; whether the inspector had a warrant for his action: whether he can state by whom the action was authorised; and what good is likely to result from such proceedings?

Mr. SHORTT: A Writ has been issued in this matter which is now sub judice and cannot therefore be discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PREGNANT WOMEN (IMPRISONMENT).

Viscountess ASTOR: 42.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state, with reference to the case of Florence Parker, who was recently sent to Holloway on remand in an advanced state of pregnancy, whether she was informed that she could apply for bail; why, when her condition had been reported, the police did not convey her to a hospital or to prison in an ambulance; and whether, in view to the serious consequences suffered by women in this condition, he will consider legislation enacting that in future no woman expecting confinement shall be sent to prison on remand unless accused of serious crime?

Mr. SHORTT: On inquiry I find that from the time of this prisoner's arrest till after her case had been disposed of by the Justices, she made no mention of her pregnancy to the police matron or otherwise. After the hearing she stated in reply to a question from the police Court matron at Hendon that she was pregnant, but she was able to make the journey to prison in the usual way; there was no reason to suppose that she was at an advanced stage of pregnancy. A police sergeant at the Court asked her if she would be able to obtain bail and she said she had no friends to whom she could apply for the purpose. There are difficulties in the way of legislation, and I do not doubt that if she had mentioned her condition to the police matron special arrangements could have been made.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: What difficulties are there in the way except want of will?

Mr. SHORTT: That is not the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE COMMITTEE (SECOND REPORT).

Mr. GILBERT: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to issue to the House the Second Report of the Police Committee?

Mr. SHORTT: The Report has been presented, and I understand copies will be available in a day or two.

Oral Answers to Questions — KUBAN PARLIAMENT (EXPULSIONS BY DENIKIN).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether several members of the Parliament of the Kuban were expelled from Russia by Denikin and were removed from Novorossisk to Constantinople on a British transport under a guard of Denikin's officers and British soldiers; and, if so, whether he will give orders that the British Army and Navy shall not be used in this way by our Russian allies for suppressing representative institutions?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. As I stated on Wednesday last, I have no information on this matter, but I am making inquiries.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When will those inquiries be answered?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am sorry to say that I cannot fix a date.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Meanwhile, will instructions be sent out to our Forces that they are not to be used in this way in the Black Sea?

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC (CARLISLE EXPERIMENT).

Mr. SEDDON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether Sir Edgar Saunders has received permission to address meetings in furtherance of the Carlisle experiment; if so, from what source the expense of such propaganda is met; how many officials and staff are engaged or employed in managing or controlling the licensed houses belonging to the Board; and whether they are requested or privileged on personal application to address meetings similar to the one addressed by Sir Edgar Saunders at Birkenhead on 27th January, 1920?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Sir Edgar Saunders attended the Birkenhead meeting referred to in the Question by invitation from the organisers of the meeting and by permission of the Central Control Board. The meeting was not held in furtherance of the Carlisle experiment, and was in no way promoted by the Government or the Central Control Board. The question whether Sir Edgar Saunders or the General Managers of the Board's Enfield Lock and Scottish Direct Control undertakings should receive permission to attend similar meetings would depend on the particular circumstances in each case.

Colonel ASHLEY: Have public funds been used in any case in connection with these meetings?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand not. There was no question of propaganda.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.

Mr. CLOUGH: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the diminished duties of the Ministry of Food, he will consider the possibility of attaching this section of his administration to
some other Department, so as to lessen the number of Ministers and decrease the employment of a large and expensive staff?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As I stated yesterday, no decision has yet been taken on this matter.

FISH PRESERVING.

Lieut. - Colonel MURRAY: 65.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether funds have been provided to enable an exhaustive inquiry into the subject of an improvement in the methods of preserving fish, as suggested in the Thirty-seventh Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): This matter, as well as others connected with the development of the fishing industry, is at present receiving consideration on the initiative of the Fishery Board for Scotland, by the Development Commission and the Treasury.

SUGAR RATION.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 73.
asked the Food Controller whether, in arranging for the distribution of sugar for jam making, consideration will be given to the requirements of women's institutes which are largely engaged in that industry, and who may now be said to represent the industrial women in the rural districts?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have been asked to reply. The Sugar Commission allotted 50 tons of sugar last year to this Department for distribution to the Women's Institutes for jam-making, and I understand they propose making a similar allotment in the forthcoming season. The value of the work of the Women's Institutes is fully appreciated by the Ministry, and in view of the remarkable increase in the number of Institutes, it is hoped that it may be possible for the Sugar Commission to increase this allowance proportionately.

Mr. SWAN: 74.
asked the Food Controller if he was aware of the discontent generally and specifically with local food control committees due to the very low-sugar ration, which they maintain is unnecessarily low if the supplies of sugar at present in ports and docks were dis-
tributed; and what steps are being taken to get the stocks of sugar distributed so that the domestic ration can be increased?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): The Food Controller is aware of the unpopularity of the diminished sugar ration, and regrets the necessity which led to its reduction. An increase will be effected as soon as circumstances permit. In gauging the extent to which stocks already in the United Kingdom may with safety be drawn upon for this purpose, regard must be paid to the prospects of supplies and requirements not only in the immediate future, but at later periods, since any lack of caution now might later on necessitate drastic reductions or forced purchases at abnormal prices.

POTATOES.

Major WHELER: 78.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether there is likely to be a shortage of potatoes prior to the 1920 crop being available for use; and whether, in view of the probable further shortage of the 1920 crop, he will consider the desirability of modifying the Wart Disease Order so that potato growers may plant King Edwards, Arran Chiefs, and Up-to-dates in clean and non-infected land in the coming season?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have ascertained, in consultation with the Ministry of Food, that there probably will be a shortage of home-grown potatoes prior to the 1920 crop becoming available, but it is hoped to reduce the shortage as much as possible by importations from abroad. It is not possible at the present time to give any estimate of the 1920 crop which will depend on the acreage planted, and the weather conditions prevailing during the growing period. No alteration of the Wart Disease Order is contemplated which will affect in any way the varieties of potatoes planted during the coming season, but the Technical Advisers of the Ministry are giving careful consideration to the question of an alternative policy which may give certain concessions to the grower without endangering the further spread of the disease.

Major WHELER: Is it not the fact that general indications show that there will be very much less acreage of potatoes planted this year?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think we have got data at the present moment to come to that conclusion.

CANTLEY SUGAR FACTORY.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 79.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Cantley Sugar Factory has now been acquired by an English company, and is being equipped with the most up-to-date machinery in readiness to deal with this year's crop; and whether he will draw the attention of farmers throughout East Anglia to the importance of this new-industry, so that at least 10,000 acres may this spring be sown with beet?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Ministry have not received any information as to any change in the ownership or equipment, of the Cantley Sugar Factory. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend can supply me with the necessary information. With regard to the latter part of the question, the Ministry are anxious to encourage the growth of sugar beet, provided that they are satisfied that it can be successfully handled on commercial lines.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: If the information which I shall send to the right hon. Gentleman convinces him that this factory is the most up-to-date in Europe, will he take practical steps to draw the attention of the farmers of East Anglia to the very great opportunity which is offered to them?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That would depend entirely on the nature of the information which my hon. Friend sends.

Sir H. CRAIK: Would it not be possible to institute inquiries to ascertain?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly; we propose to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATY OF LONDON (ITALY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Treaty, or Pact, of London between the Entente Powers and Italy has been communicated to the Government of Jugo Slavia; when this Treaty will be communicated to His Majesty's subjects; and whether His Majesty's Government denies the accuracy of the version of this Treaty published by the Soviet Government of Russia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: By agreement between, the Governments concerned, it has been decided to publish the Treaty, and it will be laid on the Table immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOANS TO POLAND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been lent to the Polish Government since the Armistice with Germany; whether interest is being paid on this money; and what loans it is proposed to make to Poland during the coming financial year?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Credits to a total of approximately £2,000,000 have been allocated to Poland out of the provision of £12,500,000 for Relief voted this year. This sum is being spent on foodstuffs, railway material, boots and general supplies. The credits will be represented by interest bearing bonds of the Polish Government.
With regard to the coming year, His Majesty's Government have announced their willingness to share in any general scheme of European Relief, but I am unable at present to say what sums will be available for Poland.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that none of this money is being spent in war-like apparatus and preparations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes. The £12,500,000 is being administered by an inter-Allied body sitting in Paris, and it was for relief, not for war.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned £2,000,000 credits. Was that for relief also, or for armaments and war-like experiments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The £2,000,000 is out of the £12,500,000 voted for relief. The sum was for relief in Poland

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I to understand also that we have not entered into any definite understandings to supply more money this year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon, and gallant Member will look at the answer I gave to this question the other day he will see the conditions attached to the Government offer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE RE-ORGANISATION.

Major HILLS: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the composition of the Committee of the National Whitley Council now inquiring into the future organisation of the Civil Service, including the recruitment of women thereto; who is chairman of this Committee; whether any women sit on it, and how many; and what are the terms of reference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee is composed of 25 members nominated by the official and staff sides of the National Council for the Administrative and Legal Departments of the Home Civil Service. The Chairman of the Committee is Sir Malcolm G. Ramsay, K.C.B, Controller of Establishments, Treasury, and Chairman of the National Council. The Vice-Chairman is Mr. G. H. Stuart-Bunning, O.B.E., J.P., Vice-Chairman of the National Council. Four of the members are women. The Committee is instructed to consider the scope of the duties at present allotted to the clerical classes in the Civil Service; to report on the organisation most appropriate to secure the effective performance of these duties: and to make recommendations as to scales of salary and methods of recruitment.

Major HILLS: May I ask for an assurance that this House will be consulted before the Report is sent forth?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not think I can give that undertaking. The first stage is that the Report will go to the main body. It will now be considered by the main body.

Major HILLS: It may be debated here? It is important, especially in regard to the interests of women.

Oral Answers to Questions — REVENUE (NEW SOURCES).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 54
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, having regard to the amount of money spent in public restaurants, he has considered the desirability and possibility of imposing an ad valorem, tax on all meals served in such places the cost of which is 5s. and upwards, exclusive of drink served with them;
(2) Whether, having regard to the amount of money spent in theatres, music
halls, cinemas, &c., he has considered the desirability of doubling the entertainment tax?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that many priceless works of art, historical souvenirs, &c., are being purchased in ever-increasing quantities by the United States citizens who are encouraged to purchase and import such objects from Europe by the remission of the import duty for objects over 100 years old, he can see his way to impose an export duty which would at any rate be some solatium to the country if we are to lose so many of oar valuable and irreplaceable possessions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must reserve for the Budget statement any announcement as to changes in taxation.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Chairman of the Income Tax Commission has indicated on what date their Report will be presented?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No precise date has been fixed by the Chairman, but he has informed me that he hopes that the Report may be ready before the end of next month.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer do his best to have this Report circulated at least a fortnight before the introduction of the Budget?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We will have the Report circulated as rapidly as we can after we get it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government received by the date laid down, namely 1st January, the replies of all the departments to the Cabinet letter of 20th November last in regard to the cutting down of their expenditure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I informed my hon. Friend on Thursday last, most of the replies have been received, but a few are still outstanding.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which are the Government Departments which have not sent in replies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, not without notice. If my hon. Friend insists on putting down a question of that kind he shall have an answer, but I think it is a waste of time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]

Sir R. COOPER: Why does it take three months for a Government department to reply?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not a fact that the War Cabinet gave instructions that the replies should be sent in not later than January 1st?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. It has not been found possible in all cases to comply with that. The matter is being watched by the competent Treasury department, and we shall get all these replies. If my hon. Friend attaches importance to it, and will give me notice, he shall have the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (TRADE UNDERTAKINGS).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of placing local authorities in the same position as a private individual in the matter of income tax, so that where local authorities own two or more trade undertakings they shall be entitled to set off against the profits of any one or more of those undertakings the loss which they may incur in any of their other undertakings and be liable to income tax upon the net result?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Consideration of this question must be deferred till the Report of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax has been presented.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE OF REALM ACT (IMPRISONMENT).

Mr. LUNN: 60.
asked the Home Secretary (1) what is the total number of persons imprisoned or interned under the Defence of the Realm Act from the beginning of the War to the Armistice and since then to the latest available date;
and what is the number at present in custody;
(2) What is the number of persons undergoing imprisonment for offences, other than treason, against the Defence of the Realm Regulations?

Mr. SHORTT: I regret that the information asked for in these questions is not available and could only be obtained by a laborious search through the registers of all the prisons. The number of persons imprisoned for offences against the Defence of the Realm Act now in custody is very small.

Mr. LUNN: 61.
asked the Home Secretary whether there are any prisoners, other than prisoners of war, in internment camps or otherwise who have been detained in custody without trial?

Mr. SHORTT: At almost all of the prisons there are prisoners in custody awaiting trial, and at one prison there are some seventy prisoners who have been brought from Ireland for safe custody under internment orders.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS (RENEWAL).

Captain REDMOND: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to renew the Rent Restrictions Acts; and, if so, whether he will favourably consider the extension of the Act so as to include tenants whose rents exceed £52 per year and who are at present subjected to capricious eviction at the hands of landlords engaged in house profiteering?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): The Committee which, as was announced by the Leader of the House on Wednesday last, has been set up to consider the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts will no doubt consider this aspect of the matter amongst others.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Colonel ASHLEY: 64.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he can now state what decision he has arrived at with reference to the question of granting pensions on the higher scale to widows under the age of forty who have no children and who are incapable of
working on grounds of ill-health, as the present Regulation involves hardship where the widow is unable to supplement her pension by earnings?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): It is proposed to meet the class of case referred to in this question by means of a new Regulation of the Special Grants Committee, the terms of which will be notified to Local War Pensions Committees at an early date.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I take it that that answer is a favourable one to the widows concerned?

Sir J. CRAIG: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

GLASGOW (SITES APPROVED).

Mr. G. MURRAY: 66.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state in detail what progress has been made under the Housing Acts in Glasgow up to date?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): Up to date in the case of Glasgow the Scottish Board of Health have approved 21 sites of approximately 1,550 acres; lay-out plans for 8 sites accommodating 4,000 houses; and 30 different type plans which have up to the present been applied to 3,880 houses on S particular sites. Tenders for 1,243 houses have been approved and those for an additional 720 will be disposed of this week. 933 houses are now under construction at the Kennyhill, Gilslochill and Coplawhill sites. In addition, 152 temporary wooden houses, out of a total of 500 which it is proposed to erect, are now under construction,

Mr. MURRAY: Is it proposed to extend the scheme of wooden houses in Glasgow?

Mr. CLYDE: I am afraid, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, I must ask for notice.

LABOUR.

Mr. JESSON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that there is such a shortage of men to-day in the building industry and that this shortage prevents the immediate building
of sufficient working-class dwellings, he will favourably consider an application to allow building-trade operatives now serving in the Army to put aside their military duties and accept employment, either individually or collectively, with private employers in the building industry in competition with civilian building-trade employees and on the same footing that Army bandsmen are allowed to compete with professional musicians; and, if not, if he will state the reasons for his refusal?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In view of the fact that there is only a small number of men of the building trade remaining in the Army, and that all those who are not serving on regular attestations will be released by the 30th April, 1920, it is regretted that the hon. Member's suggestion cannot be entertained.

MINERAL SUBSIDENCES.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 68.
asked the Secretary for Scotland (1) whether he has received any communication from the town council of Hamilton to the effect that they have been advised by their engineers not to proceed with the building of houses on the sites chosen because of the danger of subsidence due to the coal having been worked out underneath the surface; if so, what action does his department propose to take in the, circumstances: (2) whether he is aware that considerable damage to house property in the various mining areas of Scotland has been caused by mineral subsidences: that this damage and loss has affected individual owners of houses to a considerable extent: and whether he will undertake to introduce legislation providing for the payment of compensation, retrospectively, to the owners of houses who have suffered loss from any fund which may be created for the purpose of buying out the owners of mineral royalties.

Mr. CLYDE: As regards Hamilton, a communication of the nature stated in the question has reached my right hon. Friend. So far as I am aware, it does not affect the proceeding with schemes on sites already approved by the Scottish Board of Health. Without further information that has reached that Board or the Scottish Office, it would be premature to indicate proposals for action. As regards the general question of subsi-
dence, I am aware of the damage done to house property and that it has affected individual owners. The whole question is engaging the serious attention of the Government, but I cannot at present make any definite statement as to legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).

Mr. HARRY HOPE: 67.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the sum required for education for the parish of Killearn, Stirlingshire, has been increased this year from £300 to £3,400, even though the schools were all well and fully equipped and £100 was at the credit of the parish school board before it was taken over, and that the parish council has refused to assess the amount, £3,400, now required; and whether he will take steps to provide some relief being given to the Stirling county education authority to assist this and other parishes similarly situated?

Mr. CLYDE: I can only refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's reply to his question No. 9 on 1st December last.

Mr. HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making some alteration in the law as to rating, so as to give assistance to the sparsely populated rural areas?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (PROFESSOR OF ASTRONOMY).

Mr. WILLIAM SHAW: 70.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if Herr Ludwig Becker has resumed his duties as professor of astronomy at Glasgow University; and if he can state the approximate amount of public money paid to this professor in lieu of salary while he was not discharging the duties of his office?

Mr. CLYDE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Professor Becker has received the ordinary emoluments of his office during his absence on leave, that is, since March, 1916. I understand that the annual endowment of the Professorship is £600, with a house.

Mr. SHAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the professor is being retained in his own interest or in the interest of the University?

Mr. CLYDE: The professor in question is not retained on the staff of the University cither in his own interest or in the interest of the University. He has not, in fact, been deprived of his office, and is, therefore, at the present moment still professor of astronomy.

Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that this German has been paid £600 per annum during the War period?

Mr. CLYDE: Certainly. This German, like any other person with whom a British institution had a contract of payment, has received the emoluments of his office.

Sir R. COOPER: Will the Government allow him to come back again?

Mr. CLYDE: That is a question of which I should require notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTPONED QUESTIONS.

The following Question stood on the Paper in the name of Captain Redmond:
To ask the Food Controller whether he is aware that control of hides has been in operation for two years in Ireland and, as a consequence, only a small group of registered markets are permitted to be held and merchants allowed to export; whether the Dublin advisory committee of control passed a resolution in favour of the removal of control; and for what reason, and for how long, the Ministry of Food intend to continue control?

Captain REDMOND: I have been asked to postpone this Question till to-morrow, and I should like to ask if I have three Questions on the Paper tomorrow, will I be precluded from asking this Question as well?

Mr. SPEAKER: One of the other Questions will have to give place to this.

Captain REDMOND: It is no fault of mine that this Question is going to appear again to-morrow, as I have been asked to put it down again. I have already given notice of other Questions, and I submit it is not fair that a Member should have to withdraw one of his Questions.

Mr. SPEAKER: That has always been the practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. HAYDAY: 77.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board have notified county councils that discharged soldiers are not to be settled on isolated holdings; whether he is aware that, in consequence, discharged soldiers who have been promised small holdings on which they could occupy part of their time in their own village have now been informed that the promise must be withdrawn; whether he will explain the reason for this decision; and whether the matter will be reconsidered?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Ministry's policy is, wherever possible, to group small holdings together, so that settlers, by co-operative purchase and marketing, may have the best chance of securing a good livelihood. Councils have, however, been encouraged to provide ex-service men who have other occupations with land, without equipment, in the neighbourhood of their homes, and I am not aware that any suitable ex-service applicants of this type have been refused land for the reason given by the hon. Member. If he will send me particulars of the cases he mentions, I will enquire into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIJI (INDENTURED LABOUR).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Indian men and women are at present working as indentured labourers in Fiji, and what is the proportion of men to women; and whether the Government has yet done anything to remedy the conditions of the indentured labourers on the lines of the recommendations in Miss Garham's Report last year?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): There are no Indians now working as indentured labourers in Fiji. The principal recommendation in Miss Garham's Report, namely the cancellation of all indentures, was carried out on 1st January. An unofficial deputation from Fiji is now in India discussing the possibilities of Indian free emigration to Fiji with the Government of India and representatives of Indian public opinion, and I hope the result of their efforts may be to bring about that more normal pro-
portion between the sexes which was the second point insisted on in Miss Garham's Report. The Colonial Government has already made some progress with the educational and social reforms for the Indian population suggested in the Report, and will, I trust, continue to do so actively, in so far as they are applicable to the changed conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — LUSAKA, RHODESIA (DEATH OF NATIVE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a native was murdered at Lusaka, in Rhodesia, by a white youth, aged 16, on 9th October, 1919, and that the murderer was found guilty only of manslaugter; whether he received any further penalty than eight cuts with a cane; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to allow the murder of a native in a British protectorate to be treated so lightly?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The defendant in the case referred to, an undeveloped boy of 16, mortally wounded a native boy by the accidental discharge of a shot-gun. The Judge found, on the evidence of natives who are present, that the boy had pointed the gun to frighten the native, and consequently gave a verdict of manslaughter.
As regards the leniency of the sentence inflicted, His Majesty's Government are not in a position to interfere with the discretion of Judges whether in Northern Rhodesia or elsewhere, but I may add that the Judge gave as his reason for not sentencing the accused to imprisonment that "no public good would result from sending a boy of this age to prison. He had been guilty of criminal folly, but he was not a criminal in the ordinary sense; imprisonment might convert him into one."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has no influence at all in this case, in view of its great importance to us as a great black Empire and the very unfortunate impression this creates among our loyal black subjects?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The native was killed as the result of the accidental dis-
charge of the weapon, and if it had been a case purely in this country of the killing of one white boy by another, I do not think any other verdict than manslaughter could have been found. At any rate, that was my impression on reading the evidence, and if the Judge in this case inflicted a light sentence on a boy of 16, or, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham (Major Hills) would have said, a child of that age, I do not think it would be within the power of a Department of State to interfere with the Judge's sentence.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will he consider the desirability of abolishing flogging, whether of blacks or whites?

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT OFFICE.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 82.
asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether a Report on the work of the Overseas Settlement Office in respect of the year 1919 will be laid before Parliament?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, Sir. A Report of the Overseas Settlement Office in respect of the year 1919 is now being printed, and it will be laid before Parliament within the next few days.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Does that Report deal with assistance to the surplus women in this country to emigrate?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes; it deals fairly fully with that subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 83.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will take steps to improve the ventilation throughout the House of Commons, and particularly in the lower corridor adjoining the Terrace?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): The matter referred to by the hon. Member is receiving the earnest consideration of my department. I am having schemes prepared with a view to a general improvement of the ventilation of the Houses of Parliament.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would he be good enough to have the atmosphere in the lower corridor analysed?

Sir A. MOND: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM (PICTURES).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 84.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the pictures bought by the Committee of the Imperial War Museum for permanent exhibition as records of the War; is he aware that considerable feeling has evinced itself on the part of the public as well as in art circles against the expenditure of public money on what are regarded by many authorities as freak pictures; will he say whether these pictures are regarded by the Government as the best record that could be obtained in the War of moving incidents; and will he say what amount has been expended by the Imperial War Museum Committee and the late Ministry of Information in securing this collection?

Sir A. MOND: I am well acquainted with the pictures acquired by the Committee, and consider that the nation is under a great obligation to them for the able manner in which they have carried out their work. Differences of opinion will always arise as to the relative merits of works of art, but I must point out that the pictures to which exception has been taken were acquired by the late Ministry of Information for propaganda purposes, and were transferred to the Museum when that Ministry came to an end. The total collection numbers about 3000 pictures (of which 700 have been presented to the Museum), and forms an unique and invaluable pictorial record of the War, The expenditure by the Committee and the late Ministry of Information amounts approximately to £22,100 and £9,030 respectively.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that £9,000 was spent on these freak pictures, and does he think that these freak pictures give a proper record of the War to future generations?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is he aware that a vast number of people regard a great many of these pictures as atrocious libels on our troops, and will he give the name of the gentleman who was deputed to select the artists?

Sir A. MOND: I have already told the hon. Baronet that the pictures to which he refers were acquired by the Ministry
of Information, and therefore I am in no way responsible either for their ordering or their acquisition. I have inherited them. The question of their future is one for consideration by the Trustees of the Imperial War Museum when they are constituted. I should like to say that a great difference of opinion exists on the merits of these pictures, and I have observed myself with some astonishment that most of the art critics consider them very fine works of art.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has he any objection to my placing photographs of these pictures in the tea room.

Sir A. MOND: I think it would be very much better for Members to go to the Academy and look at the pictures.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it a fact that some of these pictures are portraits of Cabinet

6% Exchequer Bonds matured on 16th February, 1920, to a total of—
The option to convert into 5¾% Exchequer Bonds has been exercised in respect of approximately—


Bank of England*
…
£121,592,000
…
…
…
…
…
£59,974,000


Post Office
…
£8,317,000
…
…
…
…
…
£4,450,000


Total
…
£129,909,000
…
…
…
…
…
£64,424,000




3% Exchequer Bonds mature on 24th March, 1920, to a total of—
The conversion option has been exercised in respect of a total of approximately—




£21,540,000
…
…
…
…
…
£13,174,000


(No Post Office issue)


5% Exchequer Bonds mature on 1st December, 1920, to a total of—
The conversion option has been exercised in respect of a total of approximately—




£46,776,000








viz.:—


Bank of England*
…
£37,376,000
…
…
…
…
…
£17,818,000


Post Office
…
£9,400,000
…
…
…
…
…
£3,580,000


Total
…
£46,776,000
…
…
…
…
…
£21,398,000


* Including Bank of Ireland.

The totals in respect of the three issues maturing in 1920 are thus:—

Maturing Bonds—£198,225,000.
Conversion options exercised—£98,996,000.

I would invite the attention of the House and of the public to the fact that the list for cash subscriptions remains open to the end of this week.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

SUPPLIES IN IRELAND.

Captain REDMOND: (by Private Notice)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary

Ministers, and, if so, how can they possibly be described as "works of art"?

Sir A. MOND: None of the pictures are portraits of Cabinet Ministers, but whether a portrait is a work of art depends on the artist, and not on the subject painted.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCHEQUER BONDS.

Mr. INSKIP: (by Private Notice)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to give any information as to the extent to which the options to holders of Exchequer Bonds maturing during 1920 to convert into the new 5¾ Exchequer Bonds have been exercised?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The following figures should be taken as subject to correction when final figures are available:—

to the Shipping Controller what steps, if any, have been taken to enable the increased coal supply for Ireland, promised by the Board of Trade, to be delivered in Ireland without delay?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have only received notice of this question since arriving in the House this afternoon. I have, however, in view of messages which have reached the Ministry of Shipping this morning, and in view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said at the Adjournment last night, been making
enquiries into this question of the coal supply for Ireland, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that everything possible is being done to meet the situation. The main trouble is congestion in the ports. My right hon. Friend the Shipping Controller, with officials of the Ministry of Shipping and representatives of the Coal Control Department, are to-day at Cardiff personally investigating the position. I have been in telephonic communication with the Shipping Controller this morning who informs me that, as the result of his visit, he hopes to be in a position to secure the promptest possible loading of all vessels engaged in carrying coal to United Kingdom destinations, and Ireland will naturally get the benefit with other places of such arrangements. Meanwhile I can only say that every endeavour is being made to get the Irish boats loaded as quickly as possible.

Captain REDMOND: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and at the same time thank him for his courteous reply, to impress upon the Shipping Controller that the Irish case is most urgent, that the present position in Ireland with regard to the coal supply is appalling, and that if immediae steps are not taken, not only will the industries, but also the poor of the country, suffer?

Colonel WILSON: I may say that the Ministry of Shipping was rather surprised to receive the messages we did this morning that the situation was so serious, in view of the message we had, namely, that the amount of coal landed in Ireland last week was larger than for several weeks. But, in view of what the hon. and gallant Member has told me, and the other representations made, I can assure him that steps will be taken to mitigate the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SUPREME COUNCIL'S CONCLUSIONS.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information to the House with regard to the decisions which have been made by the Allied Governments with reference to Russia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Allied Governments have agreed on the following conclusions:—
If the communities which border on the frontiers of Soviet Russia, and whose in-
dependence or de facto autonomy they have recognised, were to approach them and to ask for advice as to what attitude they should take with regard to Soviet Russia, the Allied Governments would reply that they cannot accept the responsibility of advising them to continue a war which may be injurious to their own interests. Still less would they advise them to adopt a policy of aggression towards Russia. If, however, Soviet Russia attacks them inside their own legitimate frontiers, the Allies will give them every possible support.
The Allies cannot enter into diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government in view of their past experiences until they have arrived at the conviction that Bolshevist horrors have come to an end, and that the Government of Moscow is ready to conform its methods and diplomatic conduct to those of all civilised governments. The British and Swiss Governments were both compelled to expel representatives of the Soviet Government from their respective countries because these had abused their privileges. Commerce between Russia and the rest of Europe, which is so essential for the improvement of economic conditions, not only in Russia but in the rest of the world, will be encouraged to the utmost degree possible without relaxation of the attitude described above.
Furthermore, the Allies agree in the belief that it is highly desirable to obtain impartial and authoritative information regarding the conditions now prevailing in Russia. They have, therefore, noted with satisfaction the proposal before the International Labour Bureau, which is a branch of the League of Nations, to send a Commission of Investigation to Russia to examine the facts. They think, however, that this inquiry would be invested with even greater authority and with superior chances of success, if it were made upon the initiative and conducted under the supervision of the Council of the League of Nations itself, and they invite that body to take action in this direction.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of that very important answer, how the Eastern frontiers of these Border States are to be defined unless they enter into peace negotiations with Soviet Russia, and what will be the attitude of
His Majesty's Government if asked for their advice as to whether they should enter into peace instead of continuing the war?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to my answer. Our statement was that advice would be given to these countries that we could not recommend them to go on with a war which might be injurious to their own interests; but if, on the other hand, they were attacked by Soviet Russia inside their own legitimate frontiers, of which we would be the judges, the Allies would give them every possible support.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

CONSTANTINOPLE (DAY FOE DEBATE).

Mr. ADAMSON: I desire to ask the Leader of the House if he is now in a position to answer the question which I put yesterday as to whether it is possible for the Government to take the debate on the future of Constantinople at an earlier date than Monday next?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has arranged with his colleagues at the Conference so that the discussion can take place on Thursday. This will, therefore, be done.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask what course the discussion will take? Will it be opened by the Prime Minister?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That would not seem to me to be a reasonable course. The House knows the decision of the Conference has taken, and it seems to me the better plan would be for those who object to it to state their case.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties under which those who are not members of the Government labour in the discussion of a matter so complex and delicate as this?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can understand the motive of my right hon. Friend, but if the difficulties were so great I should have thought the moral was to leave it to the Peace Delegates.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what is the decision of the Conference?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The decision was stated clearly by me in this House when I gave the exact words of the message sent to Admiral de Robeck in Constantinople.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How long will be given to this discussion? Will it begin after questions or at a quarter past eight?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It will begin immediately after questions on Thursday. The form must depend on my right hon. Friends opposite. If they take no steps in the way of putting down a Motion, we shall then move the Adjournment.

EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.

Mr. DEVLIN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman why it is that the Irish Education Bill is being presented for the First Beading today when no mention is made of the Bill for the future government of Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a very easy question to answer. The Irish Education Bill was not so difficult to frame as the other Bill, but I hope that notice of that Bill will be given this evening.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is it because this is such an objectionable Bill that it is to occupy the time of Parliament?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which Bill will be taken first?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Which Bill is objectionable?

4.0 P.M.

Mr. DEVLIN: Both are objectionable. I do not like to use adjectives, but this is the more objectionable at present. Is it to be a proof of the sincerity of the Government in their handling of the Irish problem that they are going to occupy the time of the House in discussing an Irish Education Bill when at the same time they are presenting proposals for the future government of that country?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend has asked that question before, and I have given him the answer, which I can only repeat. Whatever the form of govern-
ment, decent education is essential in Ireland, and, as was stated in the King's Speech, this Bill will be so framed that in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill taking effect it will be adjusted to suit the new conditions.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the position can be justified of a Government proposing to transfer the affairs of Ireland to Ireland and yet dealing in this Parliament with a most vital question affecting Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Most certainly. Supposing that the new Irish Parliament were set up this year, they could not deal with education this year, and they would be grateful to this Parliament for having made the arrangements.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman really know that the only question upon which Ireland feels intensely is the payment of the teachers' salaries. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Why not pay the teachers their salaries and drop this Bill and let Ireland herself deal with education? No English Parliament has a right to deal with the question of education in Ireland.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that any Parliament which has the right to pay for it has the right to deal with it.

Mr. DEVLIN: Might I ask whether Ireland is not paying for Irish education and for a good deal of English, education?

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. John William Wilson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Coal Mines (Emergency) Bill).

That they had appointed Sir Watson Rutherford to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Silver Coinage Bill and the Public Utility Companies (Capital Issues) Bill).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON further re-parted from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had agreed to the following Resolutions:—

That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel may be and he is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place temporarily in case of necessity.

That, in the absence of the Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel, the Panel may be convened at the request of any two Members of the Panel.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.

Sir Samuel Roberts reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following Thirteen Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Mr. James Brown, Sir Henry Craik, Major Glyn, Mr. William Graham, Lieutenant-Colonel Sir John Hope, Mr. John Deans Hope, Mr. Harry Hope, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Sir Halford Mackinder, Mr. Macleod, Major M'Micking, Mr. Sturrock, and Mr. William Young.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee: That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B: Lieutenant-Colonel Allen, Captain Bagley, Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Major Birchall, Sir James Bruton, Lieutenant-Colonel Buchanan, Lieutenant-Colonel Buckley, Mr. Carr, Mr. Carter, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Mr. Bartley Denniss, Mr. Charles Edwards, Major Entwistle, Sir Arthur Fell, Mr. Gange, Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Albert Green, Mr. Joseph Green, Major Oscar Guest, Sir Robert Harmsworth, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Hudson, Lieutenant-Colonel James, Mr. Lunn, Mr. MacVeagh, Sir Philip Magnus, Mr. Mallalieu, Mr. Mason, Lieutenant-Colonel Meysey Thompson, Mr. Oman, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Raffan, Mr. Raper, Mr. Renwick, Mr. Seddon, Mr. Walter Smith, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Strauss, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Captain Thorpe, Mr. Tillett, Mr. Wallace, Sir Courtenay Warner, Mr. Waterson, Colonel Wedg-
wood, Mr. John Williams, Sir Richard Winfrey, and Major M'Kenzie Wood.

Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Silver Coinage Bill and the Public Utility Companies (Capital Issues) Bill): Mr. Baldwin, Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Cowan, Major Glyn, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Commander Oliver Locker - Lampson, Colonel Sidney Peel, General Sir Ivor Phillips, Mr. Rae, Mr. Alfred Short, Mr. Spencer, Colonel Stephenson, Mr. Tootill, and Mr. Aneurin Williams.

Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:—

That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection.

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Brigadier-General Sir Hill Child and Mr. Murray Macdonald: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Armitage and Mr. Taylor.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE LAWS.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the Marriage and Divorce Laws, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Rendall.]

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the importance of the National Rifle Association in any adequate scheme of national defence, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Barnett.]

PER-WAR PENSIONS.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the position of pre-War Pensioners, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL,

"to make further provision with respect to Education in Ireland; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. MACPHERSON; supported by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order. Since educational proposals are so essential to the welfare of Ireland, would it not be desirable that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should tell us what are his proposals?

Mr. SPEAKER: It would be out of Order for him to do so now.

CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) BILL,

"to repeal The Corn Production Act, 1917, and The Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918," presented by Sir FREDERICK BANBURY; to be read a second time upon Friday, 12th March, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

TRADE DISPUTES BILL,

"to repeal The Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and to amend Section three of The Trade Union Act, 1913," presented by Sir FREDERICK BANBURY; to be read a second time upon Friday, 12th March, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

POOR SCOTCH LITIGANTS (EXPENSES).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to regulate the expenses of appellants from the Courts of Scotland suing in formâ pauperis in the House of Lords."
This is a Bill to restore to the poor people of Scotland certain rights which have been theirs for centuries. In Scotland the Law Courts have always been open, regularly open, to the very poor. We have a very beneficent system in Scotland. A poor man who has suffered a wrong, and shows proof, can present a petition to the Courts and ask for leave to appeal for justice in formâ pauperis. It is not done as a matter of course; it has to come before a tribunal, called a Court of Probable Cause, and there he has to show that he is absolutely impe-
cunious and that he has a good primâ facie case. It is not enough for the man to believe that he has a grievance; he has to state his case, and in most cases he has to produce signed proofs or precognitions of what his witnesses are going to say. These are carefully examined, and generally the man himself or his solicitor appears. The result is that any possibility of anything in the nature of a wrongful or oppressive or blackmailing action is absolutely excluded. There is no possibility whatever of this process being misused. It was introduced as long ago as 1424 by James I. of Scotland, one of Scotland's very great kings; so great a king, indeed, that I believe he would have caused the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Neal Maclean) to be a great monarchist. In this beautiful old statute we read these words:
Gif there be ony pur creatur for defalte of cunnyng or dispense, that cannocht or may nocht folow his caus, the king for the lufe of God, sal ordane the juge, before quhom the cans sul be determyt, to purway and get a leil and wyse advocate to folow sik pur creaturs caus; and gif sik causes be obtyenit, the arranger sal assyith baith the partie skaithed, and the advocatis coastes and travel; and gif the juge refusis to do the law eavenlie, as is before said, the partie pleanzeand sall have recourse to the king, qua sall see rigourously punished sik juges, that it sall be example till all uthers.
That has been the law of Scotland and is the law of Scotland to this day. In England you have no corresponding provisions that are at all as ample and generous. Henry VII., sixty years later, introduced a Bill giving the poor man the right, if he could find a counsel and agent, who on no account must receive any remuneration, to appear for him. Henry VIII. thought that was too generous, and he enacted that the poor man could get these benefits, but if he lost his cause and did not pay his expenses he was liable to be severely punished, and the punishment is said to have been flogging. Of course, the result is that you have in England nothing corresponding to our position, but the English lawyers were very astute and for centuries they got round this provision that there should be no remuneration for the poor man's legal advisers by inventing "Dives Costs." If he got judgment for more than £5 he ceased to be "Lazarus" and became "Dives," and he was in addition allowed to tax his costs against his defeated op-
ponent. That was done till 1885 when it was challenged in the Court of Queen's Bench in England, and it was held to be a blot upon the English Statutes and the English rule. That was affirmed in 1892 in a case in the House of Lords, and from that time onwards both Scottish and English poor litigants have been deprived of their costs. It is, of course, a very great hardship to the poor man who has first fought his case in the Courts of Scotland that he has to find his way up to London, he, or his counsel, or agent, and endeavour to plead his cause and not be awarded the costs which naturally fall to him. I maintain that the Lords themselves, evidently desirous not to make the distinction, and not recognising the distinction which there is between the Scottish and the English law, the ancient Scottish law being maintained, have interpreted the Jurisdiction Act, 1876, which gives them power to regulate the matter of costs, to exclude the Scottish poor litigant from costs which would otherwise be his. While no doubt that is absolutely within their Lordships' discretion, as being judges of their own procedure, still it is, in effect, saying to the poor man or the pauper:
You are a pauper, you have been wronged, and the cost of vindicating your wrong has been incurred, but because you are a pauper your opponent shall only pay what he should have paid you to begin with before we compelled him to do so. The cost of getting your due must be borne either by yourself or by some other innocent person, by anyone, in short, but the party through whose fault such cost was incurred, he shall retain your costs as the discount upon wronging a pauper.
The costs of vindicating the wrong are a necessary and essential part of the wrong. The difference between the Scottish and English poor litigant is that the English poor litigant owes nothing to his lawyer, if he can get him to act gratuitously, but the Scottish poor litigant is in debt to his solicitor, and if he goes to the House of Lords and recovers a substantial sum, the solicitor is entitled to deduct from the sum recovered the cost which, his client being a poor man, his opponent ought to have paid, the result being that the whole sum the poor man has recovered may be swallowed up in legal expenses which ought to be paid by his opponent. That is the essential difference between the two systems. Therefore, I say that we in Scotland, knowing the sanity and safety
of our poor litigant provision, knowing that it is impossible for anything in the nature of a wrongful action to be raised, wish to re-establish the right of litigants when they come to their King and Parliament, which is surely the place where the poor man, above all, ought to get for himself the maximum of justice—when he appeals to his King and Parliament—to get given that ample justice which that great king, James I., away back in the dark ages, maintained ought to be his, and in respect to which, we trust, His Gracious Majesty in this twentieth century, will deal as kindly and graciously with his poor Scottish people as did his great ancestor in the fifteenth century. Therefore, I ask leave to introduce this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macquisten, Sir Donald Maclean, Sir Henry Dalziel, Dr. Donald Murray, Mr. Adamson, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. James Brown, Major Glyn, Mr. John Deans Hope, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Alexander Shaw, and Mr. Barrie.

POOR SCOTCH LITIGANTS (EXPENSES) BILL, "to regulate the expenses of appellants from the Courts of Scotland suing in formâ pauperis in the House of Lords," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

Orders of the Day — WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.

As amended, further considered,

CLAUSE 2.—(Continuance of certain Defence of the Realm Regulations).

(1) The Defence of the Realm Regulations mentioned in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act shall, subject to the limitations, qualifications and modifications specified in the third column of that Schedule, continue in force until the thirty-first day of August nineteen hundred and twenty, and as so continued shall have effect as if enacted in this Act:

Provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to revoke in whole or in part any of the Regulations so continued as soon as it appears to him that consistently with the national interest any such Regulation can he so revoked.

(2) If after the termination of the present War any person is guilty of an offence under any Regulation made under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, for the time being in force, he shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine, and the Court may in any case order that any goods or money in respect of which the offence has been committed be forfeited:

Provided that—

(a) a prosecution for any such offence shall not in England and Ireland be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General for England or Ireland, as the case may be, or by an officer of the police, or by a person acting in each case under a special authority from the Government Department concerned; and
(b) in Ireland the court of summary jurisdiction, when hearing and determining an information or complaint in respect of any such offence shall, in the Dublin metropolitan police district, be constituted of one of the divisional justices of that district, and elsewhere he constituted of a resident magistrate sitting alone or with one or more other resident magistrates, and the court of quarter sessions when hearing and deter an appeal against a conviction of a court of summary jurisdiction for any such offence shall be constituted of the recorder or county court judge sitting alone.

(3) The Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Act, 1918, shall continue in force so long as any Order made by the Food Controller under the powers continued by this Act regulating the price of any goods continues in force.

(4) If immediately before the passing of this Act a proclamation suspending the operation of Section 1 of the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) Act, 1915, in respect of any area is in force, then, as respects that area, all the Defence of the Realm Regulations then in force shall, subject to the power of His Majesty in Council by Order to revoke any of such Regulations, continue in force until the expiration of twelve months after the termination of the present war, subject, as respects any Regulations modified by the Second Schedule to this Act, to the modifications therein contained, save so far as those modifications limit the operation of the Regulations, and those Regulations as so continued shall have effect as if enacted in this Act; and in that area offences against the said Regulations shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, continue to be triable and punishable in like manner as if the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and the Acts amending that Act continued in force, except that where any such offence is tried by a Court of summary jurisdiction or, on appeal, by a Court of Quarter Sessions, the Court shall be constituted as hereinbefore provided:

Provided that, if the said proclamation is revoked before the expiration of the said twelve months, this Section shall, as from the date of the revocation, apply in respect of the area in question in like manner as it applies in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the words "hereinbefore provided," to insert the words:
Provided also that no such Regulation as so continued shall have greater validity than it had before the time when but for this Act it would have expired.
These words were inserted on the Motion of the Attorney-General for England in an earlier Sub-section of the Bill, with the view to ensuring that no additional validity should be given to any Regulations which might have been made under the Defence of the Realm Act. Certain of these Regulations which have been challenged in the Courts have been found to be ultra vires, inasmuch as the words in the Bill say that they shall have force as if so enacted. It was felt that additional validity might be given if these words went in without a proviso. It is far more important that these words should be inserted at the end of this Sub-section, because, whereas before we were only dealing with Orders as set out
in the Schedule, in this Sub-section we are dealing with the whole body of the Defence of the Realm Regulations which are to be continued for Ireland. It is, therefore, far more important here that we should say that they are invested with no additional validity in the passing of this Bill. I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman has very graciously consented to accept this Amendment, and I, therefore, will not further take up the time of the House.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for having moved this Amendment. I think it is necessary for the purpose of carrying out the intention embodied in the Amendment made by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General on the last occasion the Bill was before the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain BOWYER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4) to insert the following Sub-section:
(5) Whether or not there is contained in any Regulations so continued provisions for the manner in which, or the principle on which, the price of articles requisitioned or the compensation for acts done under the Regulations is to be assessed, no person shall be deprived of any remedy whatsoever, whether by petition of right, action, or other proceeding either against the Crown or any other person in respect of any direct and substantial loss suffered by such person by reason of the provisions of any such Regulation.
The object of this Amendment is to preserve to the individual the rights of the subject. Last week there was put into the Bill words to provide that the Regulations continued by this Act should not have validity greater than they have had heretofore. In Committee upstairs, I moved an Amendment in the same terms as this, and the right hon. Gentleman then in charge of the Bill told me it was entirely unnecessary. I would like to put forward the view now that these words are essentially necessary to maintain for the subject his full rights, and that they are necessary also by implication because, by implication, under the Regulations to which I will call attention in a moment, he is in danger of losing his rights. The words put into the Bill last week did not go far enough in that they only affected the validity of the Regulations continued. The Defence
of the Realm Regulations were war-time measures. As the War was on the subject gave up frankly and with goodwill many of the liberties which now that peace has come he can claim should be restored in full to him. As this is peace-time I submit that if the Government see fit to continue war-time measures, they ought only to do so if they are prepared to give back to the subject all his rights as an individual.
If I may for a moment refer to Regulation 2B, which is a Regulation dealing with power to take possession of war material, food, forage and stores, I should like to read the following words:
The price to be paid in respect thereof shall in default of agreement he determined by the tribunal by which claim for compensation under these regulations are, in the absence of any express provision to the contrary, determined.
I suppose that refers to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission. By implication the words I have just read make forfeit from the subject his right to take his case into the ordinary Courts of the land. When he comes before the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission, he may, of grace, get something for having gone there by way of compensation, but he cannot go and claim as a right to have his case heard, and to have his compensation assessed. Let me turn to Regulation 5A, in which much the same set of circumstances arise. This is a Regulation giving power to take control and maintenance of the highways and to ensure that the highway authority shall, in certain cases, pay a proportion of the rates to keep up the roads. The following words occur:
In default of agreement as to the amount to be recovered in any case, that amount shall be determined by the Road Stone Control Committee, whose decision shall he final.
That, I submit, is another definite case whore a war-time tribunal is set up, and where it ought not to be that in peacetime that tribunal should be the only tribunal whose decision is final, and before which claims can be heard and assessed. Finally, I would submit that the words of the Amendment can do no harm, and must do good in that they safeguard the rights of the individual. As war-time has now ended, and peacetime is here, this House, I submit, should guard very jealously these rights of the subject.

Major GLYN: I beg to second the Amendment. It seems at this time necessary to bring these things forward, since we want to remove, as far as possible, all Government control over the liberties of the individual. I support this Amendment because I feel that these words can do no harm, and they will ensure the liberty of the subject.

Sir E. POLLOCK: This is not the first time we have had an opportunity of discussing this matter. For reasons I gave before, and perhaps for other reasons which are more cogent, I am able to accept the Amendment.

Captain BOWYER: If I may for a moment interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I would like to remind him that this is the first time I have had an answer. In committee upstairs I did not get an answer to my Amendment. This is the first time I have had an answer, either from the right hon. Gentleman or from the Attorney-General who was then in charge.

Sir E. POLLOCK: If I have appeared in Committee to be in any way discourteous in this matter I apologise. I confess, however, that my own recollection was that on the six or seven days on which we were at it I thought the proceedings were harmonious, and so far as lay in my power I endeavoured always to be courteous. I am sorry I should have acted discourteously to the hon. and gallant Member, and I am a little surprised to hear it, because I do not remember any occasion on which I did not attempt to give him an answer.

Captain BOWYER: It was the Attorney-General.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am sorry to hear that it is my right hon. and learned Friend who is accused of being discourteous. I will now explain why I am now unable to accept this Amendment. We are continuing certain Regulations until the 31st August next and no longer. By an amendment which was accepted by the Attorney-General the House inserted a clause in the Bill which under the Regulations have such a validity as they possess at the present time and no greater. I must also ask that they shall be given no less validity. The importance of maintaining Regulations 2B and 5A as they stand is not because the matters that have
to be dealt with are questions which come forward after the War, but they are matters which arise out of the cost of the War, and although put in now, belong to a period antecedent to that which the hon. and gallant Member refers to as the time when the largest body of persons were perfectly content to meet the Government in the difficulties which then prevailed.
There is one other ground on which we cannot accept this proposal. My hon. and gallant Friend may remember that it was in the case of the Newcastle Breweries that Mr. Justice Salter decided that Regulation 2B was invalid. That case will be taken to a higher court, because it concerns a great number of claims and a very considerable sum of money, and I am not able to agree that any modification should be made in that Regulation. The fact that it has been held to be invalid in the first instance makes it necessary to go to a court of appeal, but one must keep open the possibilities of the Regulation being declared valid. A modification will be introduced by this Amendment, and for the particular period which is covered by this Bill 2B as it stands may be taken as meaning onee thing, whereas antecedently it meant another. I urge that the Regulations should stand as they are without any greater validity being given to them, but for the intervening period I ask the House to leave the Regulations untouched, and proceed on the basis that this Bill is one to continue certain expiring Regulations for a few months more. For these reasons I cannot accept an Amendment which modifies the terms of these Regulations for a particular period.

Mr. CAUTLEY: As I understand the law and the Rule 2B as it stood, the only remedy a subject had was by appearing before the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, and now those rights are absolutely taken away Regulation 2 B applies to taking possession of any raw material, food, forage and stores of any description. For some reason or other it is sought to extend these powers until the War has ended. I was not aware that the extension of this Regulation was only until the 31st August, but now I understand the Government are applying for an extension to that date when there is no War. One of the reasons given for this course is that it is quite
doubtful and still sub judice whether Regulation 2B is not ultra vires and dead. I understand that one learned judge, Mr. Justice Salter, has decided that it is dead. Therefore we are now asking the House to perpetuate something which in War was a great hardship, and which is very likely unlawful, and we are asked to continue it. I think the reply of the Solicitor-General is extremely unsatisfactory, and I shall vote against this proposal.

Captain W. BENN: The Solicitor-General is mistaken in supposing that there was any Debate in the Committee upstairs on this point. I see, on reference to the Report, that although the hon. and gallant Member moved this Amendment and gave reasons, it was negatived without any reply at all being given. The Committee Stage was passed formally, and there was the fullest understanding that we should have a proper discussion on Report. The point is that Regulation 2B says that the Food Ministry may have power to requisition food, and it lays down that in determining the price regard need not be had to the market price. This seems to inflict an injustice in this respect. Now that the War is over, new Orders may be made by the Food Ministry requisitioning stores, and they may determine the price without regard to the market value, although no extreme emergency exists, and the subject has no right of appeal except the special right provided in the Regulation. I do not think we should rob people of their ordinary rights in this way. There is no emergency, and if new Orders are made there is no reason why the person whose goods are requisitioned should not have an appeal in the ordinary way.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I will explain why Regulation 2B had that portion inserted which is now complained of. Wherever a Government department requisitioned goods it was found that the fact that the Government had requisitioned them necessarily caused prices to rise, and when the Government requisitioned goods, if they paid the market price they created an artificial price by the fact that the Government was the purchaser and very often the largest purchaser, and to safeguard the public that second portion was put in, namely, that regard need
not be had to the market price, and other factors were to be considered. That was in the interests of economy, because in particular cases of which illustrations could be given, but which I prefer to say nothing about at present, because the new class of case is under appeal, it was found necessary to safeguard the public purse against the enhanced prices that the Government department caused in the market.

Colonel ASHLEY: The last remarks made by the Solicitor-General do not seem to answer the case. I quite understand the argument when he says that during the War, in a great emergency, when the Government had to requisition huge blocks of goods, like the whole of a hay crop in the United Kingdom, as they did for two or three years, if the market price was assessed against the nation, then the nation might have had to pay too big a sum. What is the position now? I suppose the Solicitor-General does not imagine that the Government need to commandeer the whole of the hay crop for 1920 or the output of the woollen factories this year, and therefore his argument docs not apply to peace conditions as it did to war conditions. If that is so, why should we not allow the subject to have the benefit of the good old Liberal principle of getting the market price, provided that he is riot imposing an intolerable burden upon the community? I presume this power would only be exercised in very rare instances, and I ask the Solicitor-General to allow this to be assessed at the market price and not on war conditions.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I hope the House will support this Amendment This is the first time that statutory effect has been given to this principle.

Sir E. POLLOCK: The hon. and gallant Member will remember that all the Amendments introduced last time were to the effect that the validity given to this Regulation would be no more than it had in its old form, and statutory effect is not given.

Colonel WILLIAMS: If we were to pass this Bill without this Amendment, I do not think the right of the subject would be prejudiced in the law court. If the Court Of Appeal in the House of Lords upheld the Government Would this Act have any effect upon similar cases in the future?

Sir E. POLLOCK: We have put in a proviso, "provided also that no regulation as so continued shall have greater validity than it had before the time when but for this Act it would have expired." We have by these very words only increased the length of time during which the Regulation is in force, but we have not added to its validity. The very purpose of this proposal is not to give any greater validity to these Regulations than they had before. Therefore, if the decision in the case of the Newcastle Breweries is upheld in the Courts, the position of the subject will remain exactly as it was and no question can arise, nor can it be said that we have by this Bill modified or given greater validity to the Regulations under the Act, which will expire on the 31st August.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I was glad to hear the explanation of the learned Solicitor-General, but it really does not explain his opposition, or justify that opposition, to the Amendment. I think it is a most reasonable proposal and he has shown that it is most reasonable. I should like to call the attention of the House to the statement he has just made that this Act will come to an end on the 31st August this year. Is that so? The Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act may run a long time after the 31st August if the ratification of peace with Turkey and Bulgaria does not occur before that date. In that case the original Act will run until we get these ratifications, and this Bill, so far as Schedule 3 is concerned, will never come into operation at all. Therefore, I believe, we have no limit to the continuance of those Regulations, and I think it is inaccurate to say that this Act is only in force until the 31st August this year. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will give us an assurance that these Regulations are coming to an end on the 31st August, whatever happens.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am always ready to offer information, as far as I can, with the leave of the House. What I said was that this Bill we are dealing with relates to the 31st August this year. What we ask the House to say by this Bill is that the Regulations in the Third Schedule, which we are dealing with, shall continue in force until the 31st August, 1920. So far as this Bill goes, it asks for no more than that validity shall be given to the Regulations until the 31st August.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Will the learned Solicitor-General explain what will happen if we do not get the ratification of the Treaties by that time?

Major BARNES: An hon. Member has said that this Bill is in accordance with Liberal principles, but I am inclined to regard this matter from a different point of view. So far as I understood him, the Solicitor-General held out a bait, which may be more or less tempting, that we should accept his proposal and should resist this Amendment. I can assure him that the effect would be seriously to interfere with the liberties of the subject. He says people might raise the price of an estate which was going into the market if the Government were going to buy it, and therefore we should continue these proposals in order that the State might get it more cheaply, or get certain commodities more cheaply than if we had not these Regulations. That argument is one which at various times has carried a considerable amount of force on this side of the House. But what we are asked to do to-day is to barter away something even more important than the possibility of safeguarding the public purse, and that is the power to safeguard the liberties and rights of private individuals in the country. In the present position of the country I do not think it is necessary that the State should have these powers to requisition commodities under the Defence of the Realm Act. In such cases people who make claims are to come for compensation before the Commission for Losses under that Act. They had to receive compensation, not for any loss of profits, but for any actual, substantial monetary loss which was due to the action of the Government. That was established as an expedient during the War. I do not say that the operation of these war Regulations has not met with general assent. But some of those who came up to make claims have not been satisfied. During the War there was a feeling that in the exceptional circumstances, in which there might be a considerable shortage of commodities, it might have been possible for sums of money to be extorted, if I may use the word, from the State on account of the action of the State in making purchases. That was the position so far as the war period was concerned, and I think that very little exception was taken to the Act. But what we ask to-day is an explanation of
why these Regulations should be continued in operation when the circumstances are much changed, and really do not warrant their continuance. The War is over, and the conditions that obtained during the War to a very large extent have gone also. The Armistice has been signed and Peace has been signed with Germany. It is something like fourteen months since the fighting ceased, and we are asked to consent to this Bill, which continues the expedients which were thought necessary during the war period. Now that the circumstances of the War has disappeared, we ought to safeguard, perhaps, the most valuable

right that any individual possesses in this country, the right of access to the courts. In many respects such access is the supreme safeguard of the subject, and even when this House has been unable to redress grievances, the courts have proved effective for that purpose. We ought to take into view the general feeling, not only on these Benches, but on the opposite Benches, that no case has been made out for the continuance of these Regulations, and therefore the Solicitor-General should accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 242.

Division No. 16.]
AYES.
[4.55 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Pearce, Sir William


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hayday, Arthur
Redmond, Captain William Archer


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hinds, John
Robertson, John


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sexton, James


Briant, Frank
Irving, Dan
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cairns, John
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cautley, Henry S.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Tootill, Robert


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Waterson, A. E.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morrison, Hugh
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Glanville, Harold James
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Glyn, Major Ralph
Myers, Thomas



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Captain Bowyer and Colonel Penry Williams.


Gretton, Colonel John
O'Connor, Thomas P.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.



NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bridgeman, William Clive
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Briggs, Harold
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)


Astor, Viscountess
Brown, Captain D. C.
Dawes, James Arthur


Atkey, A. R.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Denison-Pender, John C.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Dixon, Captain Herbert


Baird, John Lawrence
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dockrell, Sir Maurice


Baldwin, Stanley
Burden, Colonel Rowland
Donald, Thompson


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Doyle, N. Grattan


Barnett, Major R. W.
Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Duncannon, Viscount


Barnston, Major Harry
Butcher, Sir John George
Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Campbell, J. D. G.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Casey, T. W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Fell, Sir Arthur


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H H. Spender
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Clough, Robert
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue


Bigland, Alfred
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Forestier-Walker, L.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Forrest, Walter


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Cohen, Major J. Brune
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Blair, Major Reginald
Cope, Major Wm.
Gange, E. Stanley


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Courthope, Major George L.
Gardiner, James


Berwick, Major G. O.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gardner, Ernest


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Goff, Sir R. Park


Gould, James C.
Lyon, Laurance
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Grant, James A.
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
M'Guffin, Samuel
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Rodger, A. K.


Greig, Colonel James William
Macmaster, Donald
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Griggs, Sir Peter
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Hallwood, Augustine
Mallaby-Deeley, Harry
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Mallalieu, F. W.
Seager, Sir William


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Seddon, J. A.


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Haslam, Lewis
Mason, Robert
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Matthews, David
Shaw, William T, (Forfar)


Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Moles, Thomas
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Hills, Major John Waller
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Morison, Thomas Brash
Stanton, Charles B.


Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Morris, Richard
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Stevens, Marshall


Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Mosley, Oswald
Stewart, Gershom


Hopkins, John W. W.
Mount, William Arthur
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Murchison, C. K.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Hudson, R. M.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Taylor, J.


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Neal, Arthur
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Hurd, Percy A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hurst, Major Gerald B.
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Tickler, Thomas George


Jephcott, A. R.
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Jesson, C.
Parker, James
Tryon, Major George Clement


Johnstone, Joseph
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Waring, Major Walter


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wason, John Cathcart


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Kellaway, Frederick George
Perkins, Walter Frank
Whitla, Sir William


Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Prescott, Major W. H.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Lindsay, William Arthur
Purchase, H. G.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Lister, Sir J. Ashton
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Woolcock, William James U.


Lonsdale, James Rolston
Rees, Sir John D. (Nottingham, East)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Lorden, John William
Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.
Younger, Sir George


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Rendall, Athelstan



Lynn, R. J.
Renwick, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest.

FIRST SCHEDULE.


Enactment.
Nature and Extent of Limitation.
Nature and Extent of Extension.


(1) Special Constables Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 61).
Limited to special constables appointed during the present War.
To extend to special constables appointed during a period of one year after the termination of the present War, as if in Section 1 (1) after the words "during the present War" there were inserted the words "or a period of "twelve months after the "termination thereof."


(2) The Courts Emergency-Powers Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 78), and the enactments to be read or construed as one with that Act, viz., the Courts Emergency
Limited to the continuance of the present War and a period of six months thereafter.
To continue for a period of twelve months after the termination of the present War as if in S. 2 (4) for the words "six months" there were substituted the words "twelve months."

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (1).
This paragraph deals with the appointment of Special Constables. Previously to the War, under Section 196 of the Municipal Corporations Act, provision was made for the appointment of Special Constables in October, every year, who could be called upon to serve on any occasion when the police force of a borough might be insufficient to maintain law and order. But during the period of the War, on account of the large number of constables called to the colours, provision was made under the War Emergency Laws Act enabling the Mayor of a borough to appoint Special Constables at any time in case any disturbance or riots occurred. While we think that that was absolutely essential during the War, we hold it to be unnecessary to have this power operative in times of peace, and, therefore, I move the omission of this particular paragraph, which extends this provision to Special Constables appointed during the period of one year after the termination of the present War, as if in Section 1 after the words "during the present War" there were inserted the words "or a period of 12 months after the termination of the War." I would like to point out to the Solicitor-General that in Committee he met us very fairly. Both the right hon. baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and myself tested him a lot, and I hope he will meet us in regard to this particular amendment.

Captain W. BENN: I had given notice of an Amendment which was to be moved prior to this Amendment, but, as my hon. Friend was called upon, I did not interrupt him, thinking it might be discourteous. May I have permission to lay before the House the Amendment which I desire to move?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment was out of place. It should have come on the sub-section which deals with the authority for continuing these powers.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. There is nothing compulsory about the provisions, brought in during the War, governing the appointment of special constables, but it
is considered wise to have these reserve forces continued, so that in the event of assistance being required for the maintenance of order it shall not be necessary to have recourse to the military. As is well known, the numbers of the police force are small, and, although they may suffice for the maintenance of law and order in ordinary circumstances, yet in the event of there being any great disturbance, it is obviously undesirable that it should be necessary to rely on the military to reinforce the police, and in order, therefore, to maintain this reserve, the Government ask the House to sanction the continuance for one year of the present arrangement, especially as there is very little prospect, so far as we can see, of time being available in the present session to enable us to invite the House to pass permanent legislation. This is a temporary measure, and the duties which are performed by special constables are such as all law-abiding citizens are always ready to perform. It is the business of the Government to provide that there shall be the requisite forces for carrying out these duties. May I refer to an Order-in Council, issued in accordance with the Act, in which the duties of special constables are clearly laid down. Therein power is given to nominate and appoint special constables under the Special Constables Act, 1831, when turmoil or riot is apprehended. The House will agree that it is rather late in the day to appoint special constables under such conditions. They ought to be appointed before such a state of affairs arises. The next Section says that special constables shall be appointed to preserve the public peace, for the protection of the inhabitants, and for the security of property in the police area in which the Justices may appoint them. It is clear that these are duties which every law-abiding citizen admits ought to be performed in the interests of enabling people to lead peaceable lives. The whole force is voluntary; there is no compulsion whatever connected with it. The members of the force are under the control of the chief officers of police, and act as an organised body in aid of the regular police, compensation being payable to special constables injured in the execution of their duty or to the dependants of special constables who may be killed while on duty. This is not a very big question—it is an innovation intro-
duced during the War. But it is obviously necessary to ask the House for permanent legislation. We would have done so had there been any reasonable prospects of time being available for such a measure as this, but there is no such prospect, and therefore I hope this Amendment will not be pressed.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I understand the main reason for the rejection of this Amendment is that the Government are afraid that they will not be able to find time to introduce legislation to put this on a permanent basis. Surely it is early in the Session to make such a statement as that. One might have expected it in June or July, but not in the second week of a Session, and certainly the intimation does not carry any conviction to my mind of the reasonableness of the suggestion; neither does it justify, so far as I can see, the continuing in peace conditions of so serious a change in our system.

Major BAIRD: For one year.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We are living under peace conditions now, and the reason why my hon. Friends and myself are examining these proposals of the Government contained in this Bill is not with any idea of obstructing the business of the House, but because we think this is the proper opportunity for making it as clear as we can that the people of the country are very anxious that none of these powers should be continued except where an overwhelming case is made for their continuance. I am going to suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that in this respect he might meet us. His main reason is, apparently, that the Government are afraid that they will not be able to find time for permanent legislation. I do not think that is a sufficiently strong reason, and unless we get some much better one we shall be compelled to carry our protest to the Division Lobby.

Captain REDMOND: It is really intensely amusing to an Irish Member to hear a speech like that which has been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Baird). He says this proposal to extend the time for the provision of special constables is necessary in order that we shall not have to have recourse to the military. What are the conditions in Ireland at present? Are we having re-
course to the military, and if there is a necessity for the continuance of these offensive D.O.K.A. Regulations at all in Ireland, surely this one, at any rate, need not be continued when we are having recourse to the military already there? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean to suggest that if this portion of the Schedule is passed in regard to Ireland—and I suppose this refers to Ireland as much and for as long as any other portion of the Bill—the military will not be used? Because, if that is the contention, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that if the provision to extend the period for the existence of special constables is put into effect in regard to Ireland and that the military will not be brought into operation in the future as they have in the past, then certainly I will support him, and not the mover and seconder of the Amendment. But, unfortunately, I find it very hard to believe, great and kind as the intentions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself may be, that these are the intentions of the Government to which he belongs. I very much fear that their intentions in this regard are not to abolish military rule in Ireland and substitute a police control, but rather to continue the present iniquitous system of martial law against the will and the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people. That being so, I shall support the Amendment. Before a Division, however, the Government might clear up the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this Amendment could not be accepted by the Government because the provision to extend the period for the special constables is in order to avoid having recourse to the military. I challenge him. Does that apply to Ireland? If it does, let him say so, and I certainly will support him and the Government, and not the mover and seconder of the Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK: The answer to hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is definitely, Yes, it does apply to Ireland, and, therefore, this Statute, if continued, would be applied to Ireland. But I rather thought he cared very little whether it was continued or not, for I rather gathered from his statement that, although it might apply to Ireland, they had a somewhat different system in vogue there under which not special constables were used, but other resources of law and
order of which he had some criticism to offer,

Captain REDMOND: What the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Baird) said was that the object of this Schedule was in order not to make it necessary to have recourse to the military. What I want to know is, does that apply to Ireland?

Sir E. POLLOCK: I think my hon. and gallant Friend was thinking more of England and Scotland than of Ireland. Apparently at present it has but little application to Ireland, and so I turn to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean). I gather that it is not so much that objection is taken that these powers ought under no circumstances ever to exist, but it is rather a difference about questions of method. I think probably there would be general agreement if in so far as you could use what might be called civil powers in cases of riot, tumult or disturbance, it would always be wise so far as you possibly can to rely upon civil force and avoid the use of the military.

Captain REDMOND: In England, but not in Ireland.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his punctuation of my observation. Therefore we approach this matter from the point of view that if and when a new Statute is passed it might be a perfectly-reasonable thing, subject to proper debate, for powers to be taken to amend the Act of 1831 and to give power to the authorities to ask for special constables, not when the tumult, riot and disturbance has taken place, but at a time when it may seem opportune to have special powers in reserve. Now it is said, and not at all unfairly, you are asking to continue a measure which was passed during the War at a time when you cannot say that the necessities of the War need its continuance. That is a perfectly fair criticism, but the main point is that on the general proposition the Act of 1831 should be amended. I should probably find general agreement in the House and also on the fact that experience of special constables during the War has shown that we have a reserve force which
may, in many instances, be very useful indeed, and not only from the point of preventing any riot or tumult or disturbance, but actually being very responsible, and at the same time economical and useful guardians of order. "Now," says the hon. and gallant Gentleman, "you must not pass this legislation at present or by this means. You ought to have a new Bill. You ought to bring in a Home Office Bill, and pass it before 31st August instead of asking for this power." The King's Speech adumbrated a very long list of measures, and the criticisms I saw in the Press, and in most other places, was that the work which had been sketched out was beyond the powers of Parliament. It would never be able to pass so much legislation. Therefore it is really agreed that in the programme suggested Parliamentary time has been fully mortgaged. Under these circumstances I say without the least shame that here in February it is quite unlikely that time would be found to pass a special Act. More than that, is it really very necessary, on a matter on which probably we should find general agreement, that we should when we have got this method of continuing these powers ask that a fresh Bill should be introduced and added to the burden which is already laid upon Parliament during the Session? It is because of the difficulty we see in the possibility of getting an Act through that we take what, after all, is a very short time on an afternoon when we have a Bill which can embrace these powers that we ask to be given them on the ground that they are powers which should not arouse great controversy and which would probably be granted if a different method had been adopted. I desire in every possible way to meet the sense of the House, but on this particular matter I ask it to continue these powers to special constables until an opportunity occurs for further legislation.

Major BARNES: I think the powers which are asked for by the Government must form part of the gradual disillusionment which is coming over the House, and the country generally, as to what is to be the result of the War. We heard yesterday that one of the chief results of the War which was to end war is that we are going to have a larger Army. We hear to-day that the net result is that we want a larger
police force. When we got these powers during the War, it was not with the idea of enlarging the police force. The reason was that great numbers of the constables were leaving the force, and these men were necessary to keep the force up to its original numbers. But now the force is back to its original strength, and these men are a very substantial increase to the police force of the country. I understand the Government does not ask for this as an increase in the police force. They do not say the conditions of the country are such as to necessitate an increase in the police force. The ground upon which they asked for it, as put forward by the Solicitor-General, would be a very excellent ground if one could really believe it was a genuine reason for asking for the force, and that is that the men are being asked for to supersede the use of the military. Was ever a more preposterous argument ever put before this House? Consider for a moment what are the circumstances that occasion the use of the military, and consider how the military are employed. When are they used? Under circumstances of the most extreme passion, when the feelings of the populace are so aroused that there is very imminent peril, which can only be staved off by recourse to the most drastic measures, and we are asked to believe that a body of men such as the special constables would be used on an occasion of that kind. Have they the training? Have they the arms? It is obvious that the reason which has been advanced by the Solicitor-General cannot be the reason for which these men are required.

Sir E. POLLOCK: More than once the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, "Men are required." We are not asking to create an actual force, but to have continued power to create it, which is a different thing. If the force had to be created, money would have to be voted by Parliament.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: And we say they are unnecessary.

Major BARNES: I do not quite gather the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I take it the Government is not really occupying the time of the
House with bringing forward a proposal to create something which is merely on paper. What they are expecting to get from this measure when it is passed is something substantial and something to be used. These men are to take the place of soldiers. The suggestion is that they are going to get a body of paper men who are to be valuable in times of extreme tumult and riot and to take the place of the military. I suggest that we have not had the real reasons put before us. I have not been a Member of this House long, but I have been a Member long enough to know that it is very seldom that the reasons which are put forward for a measure are the real reasons, and that the reasons put forward for resisting an Amendment are not the real reasons. The Solicitor-General knows very well that there is a very strong feeling in the country against the continuance of these powers under these conditions. Amongst the great body of workers there is feeling that there is no necessity for the continuance of these powers, and there is a very strong suspicion that they are being retained for purposes and contingencies which ought never to arise if proper treatment is given. What has been found in regard to the Military Service Act that was brought in last year? It has not been needed. The Bill for compulsory service has not been required, because during the year a Voluntary Army has been got together without the exercise of conscription in any shape or form. Therefore, the Government incurred all the odium of passing that measure without getting any benefit from it. The Government is repeating that mistake in asking for the continuance of these powers. Their action is arousing suspicion which will do no good to them, but will only stir up ill-feeling, and they are risking that in order to secure something which will be of no real assistance to them. This proposition of the Government is not of real importance, and I hope they will give way and drop it from the Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 60.

Division No. 17.]
AYES.
[5.33 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Forrest, Walter
Martin, Captain A. E.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mason, Robert


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Gardiner, James
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Astor, Viscountess
Gardner, Ernest
Morison, Thomas Brash


Atkey, A. R.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Bas'gst'ke)
Morrison, Hugh


Baird, John Lawrence
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Morrison-Bell, Major A. E.


Baldwin, Stanley
Gilbert, James Daniel
Mosley, Oswald


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Glyn, Major Ralph
Mount, William Arthur


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Murchison, C. K.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Gould, James C.
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Grant, James A.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Barnston, Major Harry
Green, Albert (Derby)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Neal, Arthur


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Greig, Colonel James William
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Griggs, Sir Peter
Nield, Sir Herbert


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hallwood, Augustine
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)


Bigland, Alfred
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Parker, James


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pearce, Sir William


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Blair, Major Reginald
Haslam, Lewis
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Borwick, Major G. O
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hills, Major John Waller
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hinds, John
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Briggs, Harold
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Prescott, Major W. H.


Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A.
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A (Midlothian)
Purchase, H. G.


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Rae, H. Norman


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Reid, D. D.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hudson, R. M.
Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Renwick, George


Butcher, Sir John George
Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Hurst, Major Gerald B.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Casey, T. W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cautley, Henry S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Jesson, C.
Rodger, A. K.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Kellaway, Frederick George
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Clough, Robert
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Seager, Sir William


Cohen, Major J. Brunet
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Cope, Major Wm.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Dawes, James Arthur
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Stanton, Charles B.


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Lorden, John William
Steel, Major S. Strang


Denison-Pender, John C.
Lort-Williams, J.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Dixon, Captain, Herbert
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Stevens, Marshall


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Stewart, Gershom


Donald, Thompson
Lyon, Laurance
Sturrock, J. Leng


Doyle, N. Grattan
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Duncannon, Viscount
M'Guffin, Samuel
Taylor, J.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E (Lanark)
Macmaster, Donald
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Elveden, Viscount
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Falcon, Captain Michael
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Tickler, Thomas George


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Macquisten, F. A.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Mallalieu, F. W.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand




Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Whitla, Sir William
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)
Younger, Sir George


Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson
Wilton, Lieut.-Cot. M. J. (Richmond)



Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Woolcock, William James U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Capt. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnes, Major H, (Newcastle, E.)
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Sitch, Charles H.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Spoor, B. C.


Briant, Frank
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E. C.


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cairns, John
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cape, Thomas
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Tootill, Robert


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Myers, Thomas
Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower)


Devlin, Joseph
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Redmond, Captain William Archer
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Rendall, Athelstan



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Robertson, John
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. George Thorne.

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (2).
My objection to this is not directed so much at the substance of the Acts referred to in the paragraphs. The only effect of the acceptance of my Amendment would be that this part of the Schedule would drop out altogether, and that the Acts mentioned would come to an end on the dates specified in the several Acts. They would all come to an end six months after the end of the War. We are entitled to ask why it is that it is considered necessary that these Acts should continue for a period of twelve months after the War and not for six months after the War as was originally intended. On the Second Beading of this Bill last year the Leader of the House told us that ratification of the War Treaties would not come until the second or third month of this year. Now we have come to that period so that we may take it that the Government last year were under the impression that it would be sufficient if they had a period of 12 months from the present date. Obviously ratification of the Peace Treaties cannot come for at least six months, so we may assume that the Government consider that 12 months from to-day would suit them. Why are they not going to take the same period now which last year they thought sufficient? Have the Government changed their mind, and, if so, why?

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of explaining why these Acts are continuing. As I understand he took no exception to the substance of these Acts, and I do not think that anyone would who understood what they are for. They are groups of Courts of Emergency Powers Acts. The original was the Courts Emergency Powers Act, which was passed on the 31st day of August, 1914, just on the outbreak of the War. Those Acts have been amended as has been found necessary to give wider scope to the original Act. The object was to safeguard the interests of certain persons, particularly those in the poorer section of the community, who might find themselves placed in serious financial difficulties owing to the outbreak of war. There were many people who found that their accustomed sources of subsistence did not produce so readily as before, and we passed a moritorium and so on. Throughout the course of the War it was found that many persons were suffering inconvenience owing to the War. We are asking that these Acts should be continued for a period of 12 months after the termination of the present War.
The powers that are given are these: that before execution should be levied by writ of fi-fa upon the goods of persons, before there should be any levy of distress, or bankruptcy, proceedings should be taken, application should be made to the Court, so as to give an opportunity to the debtor to place before the Court
circumstances out of or occasioned by the War which had placed him in an unfortunate position, and make him unable to fulfil the contract or other obligations which he has undertaken. I do not think it can be said yet that we have got back to a normal position. There are many persons, especially persons of small means, who still find that if not the main current of the War, at any rate the disturbances created by the War are still operating on them; and in those cases we do not give them an absolute right not to pay their debts, but we say that an application should be made to the Court so that if there are any facts which indicate that they ought to be dealt with on more generous lines, the Court may have an opportunity of deciding not to exercise its full power, but to mitigate the difficulty in which defendant debtors find themselves placed. I am certain that the general sense of the House would be in favour of continuing those powers. It would be a great hardship to many poor persons to withdraw them.
On the question of a change of mind of the Government, I have not been able to ascertain exactly what the position taken then was. What I am concerned with is the reason why we ask these powers to be continued. Suppose the War is legally terminated in the course of this year, then the question whether or not these powers should be continued or whether any legislation should be brought in, founded on the experience of these Acts will have to be considered in the course of the next Session, the Session of 1921. We therefore ask for these powers to be continued for a year after the legal termination of the War in order that abundant opportunity may be given to this House to consider the question of these powers, and, if the House determines upon it, making some of these powers a permanent part of our legislation, and if we take twelve months the matter may be dealt with more deliberately. I am not asking here for the powers for the executive or for a Government department. I am pleading for those who have suffered, and who are still suffering, from the War that they should have an opportunity of being dealt with leniently when justice is being determined.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I take this opportunity Of asking the right hon. Gentleman
whether he has made provision for bringing to the notice of debtors and others the fact that these Acts are coming to an end. I have recently been sitting on a Committee of inquiry into Industrial Assurance and find that the effect of these Acts has been that premiums falling due during the course of the War on policies then in existence have been postponed, except in so far as they have been voluntarily paid. The result is that when these Acts come to an end, and premiums have accumulated and become due in a lump sum, poor policy holders will find it impossible to pay and unless something is done there will be a great deal of suffering and a great many people will be deprived of the benefit of the money which they had previously paid. In the case of the foreclosures of a mortgage being held up, as has happened in a great many cases, by the provisions of these Acts, as soon as the Acts come to an end, the mortgagee will be called upon to find a large sum of money to save his property. I have not the least doubt that other obligations have been mounting up, and when the Acts come to an end the position will be so oppressive as to be unbearable to particular debtors. I therefore ask the Government to take some steps to investigate the cases of debts which are likely to accumulate in that way, and also to make provision that there shall be plenty of notice of liability to pay so that people concerned may take steps to be able to do so.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. A. SHAW: I beg to move in paragraph 4, column 3, to leave out the words
by reason of matters arising out of that war.
The Execution of Trusts (War Facilities) Acts, as I understand, gives, in the case of trustees engaged in War service abroad as members of the Naval, Military, or Air Forces of the Crown, power to persons appointed by power of attorney to sign on behalf of the absent trustees, and it is proposed to extend this arrangement for a period of 12 months after the termination of the present War. The effect of the Amendment will be that service abroad in any of the capacities mentioned will be considered sufficient to empower a co-trustee to sign on behalf of the absent trustee without having to satisfy himself as to the extent to which the absence arises out of the War.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.0 P.M.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for moving this Amendment, which I am quite ready to accept. I think that he has put his finger on a matter which might have prevented the carrying on of this Statute, as I am asking the House to do, of little avail. The fact is that under the Execution of Trusts (War Facilities) Acts we give power to a trustee who is detained abroad, "by reason of matters arising out of that war," to give a power of attorney to a trustee or somebody else to carry out the trusts in his absence. That is very necessary and very useful. It is right to take out these words in order that we may give an unqualified and definite proof to a trustee acting under a power of attorney.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. CECIL: I beg to move in paragraph 4, column 3, to leave out the words "St. John Ambulance Association," and to insert instead thereof the words "Order of St. John."
This is merely a formal Amendment, and I move it as Secretary-General of the Order of St. John. I wish to put in the proper description and to leave out a wrong description. The St. John Ambulance Association is merely a part of the work of the Order of St. John as a whole. Many of the men who have served overseas in the St. John Ambulance Brigade were not under the St. John Ambulance Association at all, but were under the Order of St. John.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am very glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in paragraph 5, column 3, to leave out the words
To extend to persons dying during a period of twelve months after the termination of the present War, as if in Section 1, after the word 'in consequence of the pro-sent War' there were inserted the words 'or during a period of twelve months after the termination thereof.'

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I am very glad that the Government have seen their way to accept this Amendment, which stands also in the name of another hon. Member
and myself, as does an Amendment further on the Paper. Apparently, the Government and the learned Attorney-General have adopted this Amendment, and I congratulate them. I should like them to continue that process a little bit further, and, while I do hot want to show any sort of affection for the Defence of the Realm Bill, such as I was accused of by the learned Attorney-General—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): This is an Amendment to leave out certain words. We must not debate other proposals which come later on, until we get to them.

Colonel WILLIAMS: I was trying to extract from the Government the reason why they had altered their policy, and why they now propose to accept our Amendment. When we were in Committee on this Bill, the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty made a great point of this clause, and in the Official Report of the second day's proceedings, on page 82, there will be found in his speech a statement that
Cases will occur for some time yet, and unless we get these words inserted there will be naval events not covered by a civil agreement. It will be wholly in the interests of the individual, and I am sure the Committee will agree to it.
Some of us did not quite believe it when we were told it, and apparently the Government have come to the conclusion that our arguments against widening this provision of the Bill are justified. Cannot they carry that a little further and exclude a good many more of these useless provisions? I do not believe the learned Solicitor-General wishes to continue a great many of these Regulations. I believe the Government have been driven to them by the Departments concerned We are all agreed that this provision should go, though not agreed on the point that provisions which may contain some germs of right in them should go in with all the others and be retained. If these are to go, let them all go.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a matter for discussion on another Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in paragraph 6, column 3, to leave out the words
during twelve months after the termination of the War, as if in Section 2 (3) for
the words 'six months' there were substituted the words 'twelve months.'
I move this in order that my hon. and learned Friend may give me the reason for continuing these Special Acts for a period of one year instead of for a period of six months as originally intended, right hon. Friend the

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am very glad to give my right hon. Friend the explanation asked for. This is an Act under which where there was a duty to perform or

SECOND SCHEDULE.


Regulations continued.


Number of Regulation.
Subject Matter.
Limitations, Qualifications, and Modifications subject to which Extension is made.


1
Ordinary avocations of life, &c., to be interfered with as little as possible.



2AB
Power to take possession of premises for purposes of the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of Labour.
So far as relates to the Minister of Pensions if after due inquiry he is satisfied that the premises cannot otherwise be reasonably obtained.


2B
Power to requisition War material, stores, &c.
So far as relates to the powers of the Food Controller, and to flax.


2BB
Power to vary terms of sub-contracts.
So far as relates to cases where certificates or Orders have at the passing of this Act been issued.


2C
Power to take possession of and fell trees.
So far as relates to timber of which possession has been taken at the passing of this Act.


2E
Power to regulate dealings in War material, stores, &c.
So far as relates to the powers of the Food Controller, and to flax and clinical thermometers.


2F to 2J
Powers of the Food Controller.



2JJ
Power to regulate articles of commerce other than food.
So far as relates to coal (including anthracite and all other kinds of coal, coke, briquettes, and any other solid fuel of which coal or coke is a constituent), gas and electricity.


2JJJ
Power to regulate the transport of goods by road.
As if in Subsection (1) the words "and thereby furthering the "successful prosecution of the "War or otherwise securing the "defence of the realm" were omitted.


2O
Keeping of pigs.
Subsection (5), and, so far as relates to permissions granted and in force at the date of the passing of this Act, the remainder of the Regulation.


5A
Power to take over control and maintenance of highways.
So far as relates to highways which have been damaged by Government use before the passing of this Act, and as if for the words "for the "purpose of securing the public "safety and the defence of the "realm," there were substituted the words "in the national "interests."

power to be exercised under the Special Acts, and the time was limited, it was—

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In paragraph 10, column 3, leave out the words
To extend the valuations due to be made during twelve months after the termination of the present War, as if in Section 1 for the words 'six months' there were substituted the words 'twelve months,' ".—[Sir E. Pollock.]


Number of Regulation.
Subject Matter.
Limitations, Qualifications, and Modifications subject to which Extension is made.


6A
Power to exempt factories and workshops from provisions of Act of 1901.
So far as relates to Orders authorising, subject to the weekly limit of hours allowed by Act of 1901—




(a) employment of women and young persons in shifts (not being night shifts) averaging not more than eight hours;




(b) employment of women and young persons at special times in creameries and cheese-making works;




(c) night employment of male young persons over 17 years of age in wire-drawing;




(d) minor adjustments of times of starting and stopping work and of meal intervals.


7B
Power to regulate traffic on railways.
Except paragraphs (b) to (j) of Subsection (1) and as if the words "with a view to the successful "prosecution of the War" were omitted.


8DD
Power to issue motor drivers' licences to males between 16 and 17.
So far as relates to existing licences issued thereunder.


9G
Power to control coal mines.



9GGG
Power to authorise the working of seams of coal in certain circumstances.
So far as relates to any seams with respect to which existing authorities have been issued.


10B
Power to restrict hours in the evening during which business may be carried on.



11A
Power to restrict lighting with a view to increased supply of light and power for purpose of production.
As if the words "necessary for the "successful prosecution of the "War" were omitted.


12D
Power to prohibit whistling and other noises.



14H
Restriction on the use of assumed names.



15C
Power to require particulars as to businesses.
So far as may be necessary in respect of any contract or requisition entered into or made during the War.


17
Suspension of restrictions on powers of making byelaws.



18A
Prohibition on communications with agents of foreign powers.



21A
Provision for the protection of homing pigeons.
Except paragraph (c).


30A
Restriction on dealings in War material.
So far as is necessary to control the export of arms and ammunition.


30E, 30EE, 30EEE
Provisions as to coinage and bullion.



30F
Restrictions on new capital issues.
Except Sub-sections (1), (2), (3), and (5).


31
Restriction on import and removal of arms, ammunition and explosives.



33
Restriction on possession of explosives and highly inflammable liquids.



34
Provisions as to the storage of petroleum and other highly inflammable liquids.



35A
Power to make rules for securing the safety of factories, &c.
So far as relates to factories in which dangerous operations in connection with the breaking-up of ammunition are carried on.




Number of Regulation.
Subject Matter.
Limitations, Qualifications, and Modifications subject to which Extension is made.


37B
Duty of providing wireless telegraph apparatus on ships.



39BBB
Powers of shipping controller.



39C
Regulation of traffic at ports.
As if the words "whereby the "successful prosecution of the "War may be endangered" were omitted therefrom.


39CC
Restrictions on power to purchase ships.



39DD
Powers of Shipping Controller.



39FF




39G
Provisions as to registry of British ships.



40B
Restriction on the supply, preparation and use of cocaine and opium.



40BB
Purchase and distribution of drugs designed for the treatment of venereal disease.
As if the words "during the continuance of the War" were omitted therefrom.


41
Unauthorised use of uniform, badges, &c.



42A
Provisions against persons inducing members of the forces to contravene the King's Regulations, &c.



43A
Obstruction of members of the forces in the execution of their duties.



45
Forgery personation, and other fraudulent offences.



45F
Provisions for securing discipline of the allied forces in the United Kingdom.



47, 48, and 48A.
General provisions as to offences
So for as relates to offences against Regulations continued by this Act.


51
Powers of search
As if, as respects Great Britain, for that Regulation the following Regulations were substituted:—




If a Justice of the Peace is satisfied on information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence against these Regulations has been or is about to be committed, he may grant a search warrant authorising any constable named in the warrant to enter at any time any premises or place named in the warrant, it necessary by force, and to search the premises or place and to seize anything found therein which is evidence of an offence against these Regulations having been or being about to be committed or with regard to or in connection with which he has reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence against these Regulations has been or is about to be committed.




Where the alleged offence is an offence under Regulation 18A and it appears to a superintendent of police or any person upon whom the powers of a superintendent of police are for the purposes of this Regulation conferred by a Secretary of State, or in Scotland by the Secretary for Scotland, that the case is one of great emergency, and that in the interest of the State immediate action is




Number of Regulation.
Subject Matter.
Limitations, Qualifications, and Modifications subject to which Extension is made.




necessary, he may by a written order under his hand give to any constable the like authority as may be given by the warrant of a justice under this Regulation.


55
Powers of arrest
As if, as respects Great Britain, for that Regulation, the following Regulation was substituted:—




Any person who is found committing an offence, or who is reasonably suspected of having committed or being about to commit an offence under Regulation 18A may be arrested without warrant by a constable or by a person authorised for the purpose by a Secretary of State, or in Scotland by the Secretary for Scotland.


55B
Power to provide for co-operation of fire brigades.
Except so far as relates to air raids.


59
Saving of powers.



60
Publication of orders, &c.



61
Production of permits.



62
Definitions
As if for the words "acting in naval "or military co-operation" there were substituted the words "which "have acted in naval or military "co-operation."


63
Citation and construction.



66
Effect of revocation.



NOTE.—For the purposes of this Schedule "existing" means existing and in force at the date of the passing of this Act.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out the Regulation 2AB.
This has been fully discussed in the House to-day on a previous Amendment, and I do not want to go over the arguments again. But I would ask the Government once more whether the passing of this Regulation would not affect impending action in the court. I think it is essential that we should have the liberty of the subject to appeal to the law courts for compensation, and that nothing should be done by us here brutally or in ignorance to prejudice the right of the subject to proceed either by Petition of Right or in any other legal way.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment. We had considerable discussion upon this Regulation and I attach considerable importance to it. The Regulation gives power to the Government to take possession of premises for the purposes of the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of Labour. We pointed out in Committee that a great deal of hardship would be caused by the powers granted
to different departments of the Government to commandeer premises. The result was no doubt—I do not wish to blame the Government—that officials, in order to save themselves trouble, and with the knowledge that they could go in and turn a man out of his house or business or shop and take premises that were most convenient to themselves, did not trouble to find out whether they could get premises the owners of which would be only too glad to part with the possession of them. I think the Government met us to a certain extent, because they agreed to reserve these powers only to the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Labour. Why should the powers be reserved to those two particular Departments? We discussed it at length and eventually a kind of compromise was arrived at, which amounted to something like this: that, so far as related to the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Labour, the power should be used only if, after due inquiry, they were satisfied that premises could not otherwise be reasonably obtained. What does that mean? It means that the
Ministry of Pensions, whose staff is increasing largely every day—it is now made up of between 20,000 and 30,000 people—have the right to go down and take anyone's house or office and to take possession of it, provided the Minister says that, in his opinion, other premises could not reasonably be obtained. At the present time, with all the various offices which have been vacated, and the offices which should be vacated very soon by Government Departments, surely there must be premises which could be taken without having these compulsory powers. It was all very well during the War that powers of this sort should be granted, but now it would do no harm if the Ministry of Pensions, before they took new offices, had to take a little trouble to find out whether or not premises could be obtained without exercising these powers. In ordinary circumstances we should have thought that peace would have been established long before this. It is a mere fiction to say that the War is not ended because peace is not ratified. The War has been ended for a long time. Under the circumstances I think we ought to insist upon this provision being omitted.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir J. Craig): I would like to point out to the mover and seconder of this Amendment that there is no Department of the State in regard to which it could be said more truly than of the Ministry of Pensions that the War is not yet over. It must be borne in mind that from the signing of the Armistice nearly all the other Government Departments were able to relax their efforts, while, to a certain extent, the Ministry of Pensions only began really to feel the full weight of the War. Let me remind the House there are now behind us the demobilisation of some 3,700,000 odd from the Army, and a very large number of whom will be on the Ministry of Pensions. So far from being able to curtail our activities, we are at this moment at the very top of the wave. Several considerations have made it more necessary than ever to continue this section. In the pre-Armistice days a large number of the local committees throughout the country had the advantage, of a town hall or some other municipal building in order to carry out the work of the Ministry. Lately it has been impossible
to ask the municipalities to continue that courtesy, and in many cases we have had to seek for buildings elsewhere. We have been most generously treated by the municipalities in the past, and I am not complaining, and I think it is only natural that with the resumption of ordinary normal life the municipalities should require the whole of their own buildings, and that they should ask us to be good enough to find quarters elsewhere. Not only are local committees asking for accommodation, but, owing to the system which was, I think, unanimously approved by the House, that we should have decentralisation of pensions, it became necessary to establish, in the large provincial towns, regions. Therefore, it is necessary to requisition housing accommodation. It ought also to be borne in mind that when we requisition buildings in the Provinces we will be able to curtail the accommodation in London as time goes on and to close up various large premises that we have taken in London, and in that way some of the criticisms in regard to the larger buildings in London will be met by the action we are taking in asking the House to continue this Order.

Sir F. BANBURY: If it is necessary for the municipalities owing to the termination of the war to resume possession of their buildings, why should not private people demand the same privilege?

Sir J. CRAIG: Of course, but I hope that the House will recognise that there is a great responsibility on the Ministry of Pensions, and that in all circumstances these heroes who fought for us should have the first consideration in the question of taking premises. We endeavour in all cases to take only empty premises, and in many cases these Orders are only brought into force in order to suit the landlord as well as the tenant, because there may be some clause in the lease which prevents a private house being used for office purposes. When my right hon. Friend says that private owners should get their premises back we are only too glad to do so, but still we must insist that in all circumstances the position of the men concerned should be the first consideration. There are only some 80 premises occupied under these conditions, and of those 30 were bequeathed to us by other Departments, such as the National Service Department. Taking
them all round, it is not a large problem, but this power is necessary in the meantime. It is extremely difficult to get buildings erected rapidly, and our pensioners must be met promptly week after week, and the business is a very large one at the present time. Although our end is the same as that of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and of the right hon. Baronet, namely, that we should get back to normal conditions as soon as possible, yet we must ask the House for some little time longer at all events for this power. We are bound to get premises to carry out the work, and the regions will require staffs, I anticipate, of between three to five hundred, according to their size. It is not easy to find the very accommodation one would like, and that is another reason why we must continue under these conditions. I feel quite sure there is no part of the measures which it is proposed to continue of the Defence of the Realm Acts which will appeal to the country more than that concerning pensions. It is essential that we should be undisturbed until we have discharged the onerous duties laid upon us, and I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment, and that my right hon. Gentleman will see his way to withdraw it

Sir D. MACLEAN: I rather gathered from some of the observations made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, that the powers he seeks to continue have something to do with providing houses for heroes to live in. Regulation 2AB is not for the purpose of providing houses for disabled men. It provides that it shall be lawful for the Commissioner of Works to take possession of any land, including buildings, for the Ministry of Pensions which that Ministry may certify to be required for the purpose of accommodating the staff of the Ministry or of otherwise carrying into effect the Naval and Military War Pensions Acts of 1915. Those words are sui generis and mean the clerical administrative side of the Ministry of Pensions. I am sure everybody agrees that of all the Government Departments the Ministry of Pensions is the one we least desire to be the means, however unwittingly, of causing any obstruction to in their work. While holding that view, it is our duty to see how far we can accommodate the desires of the Executive to the general public position, in these times of at any rate improving peace. What is the
general records of the Government Departments in connection with taking property for administrative purposes? As far as I know the Ministry of Pensions has not been any more careful in their administration than other Departments have been. The House of Commons is entitled to know what the position at present is before it gives the Executive the powers they are now seeking. I think I can appeal to the knowledge of the House, as well as to our own observations, as to the carelessness with which many premises have been taken by many Departments, and the complete absence of any idea of economy as to when they should be given up. There are many premises all over the country which are available to-day for any extension of the work on the Ministry of Pensions. What about the premises which have already been taken because the powers sought here is to take fresh premises. While we are indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for the explanation which he has given us, he has not, to my mind, given us a sufficiently thorough account of their stewardship in this matter. Can he give us details with regard to the premises which they at present occupy and the premises which they seek to occupy? That is the sort of information the House is entitled to ask for.

Sir J. CRAIG: May I say, we take no buildings without the concurrence and sanction of the Office of Works, and it is only when the Office of Works assure us that there are no other available premises in any particular place that we inspect them and if, on inspection, we find they are suitable then, and then only, are they taken. We are economising in every possible direction. Building is very slow. We cannot wait to negotiate privately for a place when we see a chance of getting some place suitable for our purpose. I wish to emphasises the fact that this matter is done in conjunction with the Office of Works. My right hon. Friend may be quite assured that there is no one more anxious than the Minister of Pensions and myself to economise in every possible way. At the moment we are pressed with a large number of cases of demobilised soldiers and sailors, and we do not wish to disturb at this time, or for a number of months to come, the gigantic task we have undertaken.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman say if these powers
are not granted that they will not be able to carry on in the existing buildings? Would he give us some information as to how many new premises they require, and the extent of the demands which he thinks his Department will have to make within the course of the next three months? When do they anticipate that the high water mark of their demands will be reached?

Sir J. CRAIG: Now.

Sir D. MACLEAN: That being the case, why are these new powers sought? I should have thought that the existing powers which they exercise are ample for the demands which are likely to be made upon them. There is another point about which I suppose we will hear more when the Ministry of Pensions is seeking permanent quarters. We hope that there will be a diminishing return of the number of persons to be dealt with, but it will probably be many years before there is any very appreciable difference. That is the sort of information which I am suggesting to my hon. and gallant Friend he might give the House. Now may I turn to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour? Why is there not some qualification in column 3 of the Schedule applying to him as well as a qualification applying to the Minister of Pensions? The words applying to the Minister of Pensions are:
So far as relates to the Minister of Pensions, if after due inquiry he is satisfied that the premises cannot otherwise be reasonably obtained.
That seems to be a very proper qualification to put in, and if it is good for the Minister of Pensions, why is not the same qualification introduced for the Minister of Labour?
Coming back to the general point, I would say in conclusion that we were bound to grant these powers, and we gladly granted them, during the War. We had, of course, to continue thorn after the War, but the Armistice is more than 18 months old, and it is the duty of the House most carefully to examine these proposals of the Executive to seek new powers. When the case is made, by all means give them the power, especially for such a purpose as that of the Ministry of Pensions, but I would suggest to my hon. and right hon. Friends who are in charge of this Bill that they do not treat
the House quite so cavalierly with regard to information which is sought. I do not say this in any hostile sense, but do treat the Opposition as asking very seriously for information and as endeavouring, however limited their resources may be, to discharge a public duty. It is our duty to investigate as carefully as we can these very large powers which the Executive is seeking, and I need not assure my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite that, however it may be misunderstood anywhere, we are going to discharge our duty to the very best of our ability on each point that seems to us to require that discharge of our duty. Now I would ask from both the Ministers who are in charge of this matter that they should give the very fullest information in their power to the House with regard to the very large demands they are making on us.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I am sure no one in the House could ever complain of the spirit in which my right hon. Friend puts his queries upon these great financial questions. It is not only his right to extract information upon these topics, but it is also his duty, and I recognise that on my own shoulders lies the burden of giving an adequate explanation to the House as to why we should seek to continue these powers. The House also, in my view, would be neglecting its duty if it failed to ascertain what these precise reasons are for continuing powers which we all recognise as being strange and in some senses burdensome after the War is over. I am certain that, on the other hand, the House will recognise that we are now in a position which in many respects is far more difficult than during the period of war, and in particular the duties which fall upon my Department are far greater, more burdensome, and more difficult now than they ever were at any period of the War. My Department is concerned in this particular question because of the fact that there are certain duties which we have taken over from the Ministry of Pensions. The explanation which my right hon. Friend sought at the end of his speech as to why the Ministry of Labour was not put under a similar qualification to that which applies to the Ministry of Pensions really arises out of this fact. An error was made in not including the Ministry of Labour with the Ministry of Pensions
in the third column of the Schedule, with the result that I am compelled to move an Amendment, which is on the Paper, in order to bring the Ministry of Labour into the third column, and to make the same qualification apply to the Ministry of Labour as to the Ministry of Pensions. I think that will satisfy my right hon. Friend upon that particular part of his speech.
With regard to the merits of this question, as I have said, the Ministry of Labour has taken over certain duties from the Ministry of Pensions, and the greatest of these is the training of disabled soldiers. That, I am certain, the House recognises as one of the duties which, above all, must be discharged by the country at the present time. We had a Debate in this House only a few nights ago which showed how keenly the conscience of the nation is stirred upon this question, and it is imperative upon us that we should discharge our duty and that we should ask the House of Commons to give us the necessary powers for that purpose. How do we stand to-day? The House must have learned frequently during Question time—and I confess it with great regret—that we are not nearly abreast of the necessary provision of training facilities for the disabled men. There are many disabled men to-day wanting training for whom we can provide no works and no equipment. Our greatest difficulty in that regard is in obtaining the premises and the equipment quickly enough. I can assure my right hon. Friend that I have done everything in my power to perform my duties without any recourse to the power which we have under the Defence of the Realm Acts of acquiring necessary premises. But he, from his professional experience, I am sure, knows what an extraordinarily difficult thing it is by private bargain to get the premises you want. The delays are interminable; you negotiate about this, that, and the other condition; you spend endless time discussing margins of prices: and after months of delay of that kind you ultimately are unable to obtain the land and premises which you require.
We cannot afford that delay. We have been going through a period of great difficulty in the last year, owing to the circumstances which I have described, and, although, as I say, I only in very unusual circumstances apply the power of the Defence of the Realm Acts, nevertheless,
unless I keep that power, I am certain that my actions will be impeded at every turn, and I have come regretfully to the conclusion that, although in some cases it will add to the cost which will ultimately have to be paid for some of these premises, the urgency of the situation is such that we must be able to acquire these premises without delay, and that it will be necessary for us to take over the land and equipment we require through the powers of the Defence of the Realm Acts, and leave the compensations to be settled afterwards under the arrangements which are provided for compulsory acquisition. I can give the House the most complete and sincere assurance that I would not be here to ask for the continuation of these powers if I could do without them, but I have been regretfully compelled to come to the conclusion that if we are to do our duty by the men, who are in themselves the anxiety of the whole country, and rightly so, to-day, we shall have to ask the House to grant us these powers. I can also give the assurance that they will never be used, if I can help it, except in circumstances where they are absolutely required.

Colonel ASHLEY: I would appeal to the movers of the Amendment to withdraw it. I have been a consistent opponent of this Bill, but I think to every rule there is an exception, and I think this is the exception, in the case of the pensions of the ex-service men and the training of the disabled. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has told us very frankly that he will not have to use these powers in many cases. The powers only go on till the 31st August this year, or to the ratification of peace, whichever is the later date, and unless he gets these premises I can say from personal experience that he will not be able to provide the training for the disabled men. Therefore I think we ought to make an exception in this case. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench (Sir D. Maclean) said, "Why not continue the premises you have got up and down the country at present?" But those premises very often will not do, because they are not in the right locality. The Ministry of Pensions has made a complete new scheme, so that there shall be no delay in assessing and in paying up pensions to the disabled men. They have had to fix upon a central town in a
certain area, where they must have their office, and very often their present offices do not fit in that particular area. I am sure this House would be the first to blame the Ministry of Pensions if they did not pay out the pensions up to date, and therefore I think both these Departments have made out a good case for a short continuation of the extraordinary powers given to them during the War.

Mr. T. SHAW: I want to support the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. There is no economy whatever in trying to do work in inadequate premises, and it is better that a Government Department should have power to get in premises quickly than that it should have to work from hand to mouth badly housed, inadequately fitted, and consequently unable to do its work in the best possible way. I have had sufficient experience, at any rate, of one Government Department, to find that whenever a Government Department requires adequate housing, it meets with all the opposition possible from pretty nearly every section of the community, and I am rather inclined to think that if the balance could be struck, lack of accommodation has led to more wasteful expenditure than over-accommodation which has been secured by any Government Department. I am all in favour of the Government Departments having the power to get really adequate accommodation, believing that the pressure of public opinion alone will prevent a Government Department from being too extravagant, at any rate, in the provision of accommodation.

Mr. MacVEAGH: My hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir J. Craig) has certainly made the most effective case in defence of the proposal now before the House, but I do not think it was conclusive. Nobody would desire to stand in the way of the Minister of Pensions in the very responsible duties entrusted to him, and nobody would like to impede in any way the very good work for the amelioration of the lot of the ex-soldier. Similarly, so far as the Minister of Labour is concerned, we are all sympathetic with everything he can do for dealing with the invalided soldiers. I do not think that that sympathy exactly meets the point. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite says it is necessary to confer this power because the premises they at present occupy are in many cases most unsuitable.

Colonel ASHLEY: No; they are not in localities in which they ought to be so as to fit into the present scheme.

Mr. MacVEAGH: That makes my point still stronger. Why were those premises commandeered originally if totally unsuitable for the purpose? This was done under the commandeering system before. Premises have been taken up and down the country. If anyone walks through the streets of London in which premises were commandeered, he will recognise in many cases that premises were taken which were totally unsuitable, while more suitable premises immediately in the neighbourhood were not accepted. I can give instances, for example, in Kingsway, where premises were commandeered and thousands of tenants turned out, whilst vacant premises were on the other side of the street. That has been going on all over the country, I do not doubt, but that is not an argument for conferring power on any Government Department to go on blundering again. The hon. and gallant Baronet who represents the Ministry of Pensions says that the pressure at the Ministry is at high-water mark. I suppose we can take it that the pressure at the Ministry of Labour is also at high-water mark.

Sir R. HORNE: The pressure is high, and we cannot get premises quickly enough.

Mr. MacVEAGH: So far as the Ministry of Pensions are concerned, no doubt the pressure is now at its highest, and they are able under present circumstances to accommodate all the staff. I think the Ministry of Labour is able to accommodate all their staff, not quite so luxuriously as some would like, but still able to accommodate them all. It would have been interesting if the House had been given a list of all premises held by these two Departments throughout the country, and I think the House would have been staggered at the amount of accommodation they have already, and which they propose to take powers to increase. There is another point on which I should like to hear a word from the Solicitor-General, and that is as to the manner in which the Crown is going to deal with the tenants whose property is commandeered. The House is familiar with the attitude which has been
taken by the Government up to the present. There was the Canon Brewery case, for example, and also the De Keyser Hotel case. The Crown took up the extraordinary attitude that when they commandeered any property of the subject, that subject is not to be entitled to seek the protection of the King's Courts. Is that going to be done now under the powers we are going to confer? We have never really had an opportunity in this House of fully discussing the seriousness and the gravity of the attitude taken by the Government on the subject of compensation to tenants whose property was commandeered, but now that we are asked to renew these powers, it is not only the right but the duty of this House to require an undertaking from the Crown that such an impudent demand will never be made again in the Courts of the country. What was the attitude? A man's property is commandeered. He claims compensation, and the Crown says the subject has no right to compensation as against the King, and that he has no right to go to the King's Courts for compensation. That was audaciously argued for the Crown, and then they said, "Your remedy is to go before the Defence of the Realm Losses, Commission, and the amount to be awarded you there will be decided upon principles which guide that Commission in assessing compensation."
That was an extraordinary attitude to take up, because everyone who knows the Defence of the. Realm Losses Commission knows that they have no legal principle to work upon. It is rule of thumb all the time as to what compensation will be given. But they went further. Any man whose property was commandeered had to sign a declaration when going before the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission that he had no right to compensation at anyone's hands and that he placed himself entirely in the hands of this Commission for such ex gratia compensation they might think fit to make. That is not a fair and an honest way to treat any man whose property is taken from him, and it is not an attitude which should be adopted by any Government. I hope the House will make it perfectly clear to the Government that it is not an attitude which will be approved or condoned by this House. I think I am not asking very much in requesting the Solicitor-General to give an undertaking that such a claim will never again be put forward by the
Crown in the Courts of this country under this Act. The Crown actually carried the case to the House of Lords. Had they not been dealing with rich men a case could not have been carried there. A weak man would have been crushed entirely before that by the cost of the litigation. In the commandeering under this Bill as now extended, we may be dealing with men who cannot afford to carry a case to the House of Lords, and therefore I think it is a reasonable demand to make that the Solicitor-General should tell us now, frankly, that we have reached the end of this system of the Crown trying to deny to any subject of the King the right to seek the protection of the King's Courts.

Mr. HOHLER: I oppose this extension. I have heard no good reason, in my judgment, to justify it. The Minister of Pensions has admitted they have reached their high water mark. I should have thought it was rather on the ebb than otherwise. My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but I well remember when the Estimates were given last year we were provided with some interesting figures as to the number of widows who had re-married, and no doubt when we reach the Estimates this year it will be found that a great number of persons now in receipt of pensions have fallen out by the way. The demobilisation of the Army is practically at an end, and there are very few cases, if any, which now exist for a call for a pension. We have had grave complaints in regard to Government departments having taken property and refusing to vacate it. This provision is not restricted to vacant property. The Minister of Labour has not indicated what is the character of the premises he proposes to take. He tells us vaguely they are to be used for the purpose of training demobilised men. Is he going to take private houses, shops, or what? Surely the Government have endless works throughout the country, derelict at the present time, where this training could go on. Look at Rich-borough; look at Slough, and a number of other places they have got!
I want further to emphasise this point. If they are going to take premises which are inadequate, is it fair in reference to the rest of the community? One of my right hon. Friends who spoke said that building did not progress rapidly. Everyone is agreed about that, but we know meanwhile that the difficulty of getting
house accommodation for the community is enormous. There are cases in the county courts every week in which orders are made and people cannot get accommodation, and yet these Ministries are seeking powers to take premises which will throw out more people, when they know accommodation elsewhere does not exist at the present time. I am very strongly opposed to this extension, and to the growing expenditure. I am satisfied that the Ministry of Pensions could carry on, and if an appeal were made to local authorities they would willingly, as hitherto, lend their public buildings for this purpose. I believe that, rather than have the disadvantage inflicted upon them of having more people thrown out of their houses and unable to get rooms elsewhere, the local authorities would willingly do anything they could to meet this emergency. All that we are asked is, blindly, without any concrete cases given, to confer these powers. It has now leaked out that they have houses at present, but they have some new scheme under which they are going to organise in one particular centre or one particular street. That would involve displacement of people carrying on business. Why do not the Departments carry on until times get easier.
My hon. Friend who has just spoken referred to an important point—the question of compensation. I have no hesitation in saying that the Crown have not dealt fairly with people who have been dispossessed. I see the Solicitor-General there. I think I am right, but so far as I am aware, though the Crown have taken the De Keyser's Hotel case to the House of Lords, it is there suspended, and has been suspended for months, and no decision can be got. There was a case earlier that went up during the War, and it was settled, so that there was nothing reported, though it is known in the profession. What have the Government been doing meanwhile in regard to this question of compensation? At least on one occasion they introduced in a Bill in this House a Clause which would absolutely have destroyed the effect of the Court's decision in the De Keyser case, and what I fear is that they will slip in, in some unguarded moment, a Clause getting rid of the right of compensation as decided in the Court of Appeal in the Cannon
Brewery case. I am entirely opposed to this power, and if there is a Division, I shall certainly vote against it. Either of these Ministers is to have these powers, and,
so far as relates to the Minister of Pensions, if after due enquiry he is satisfied that the premises cannot otherwise be reasonably obtained.
So he just walks down the street and sees a shop or a private house he thinks would suit him, and then goes to the Ministry and writes to make inquiries. The man may say he wants so and so, or will not be dispossessed on any terms, as it is his livelihood or his house, but the Minister says, "I want these particular premises" and, satisfied they "cannot otherwise be reasonably obtained," the man is put out by the Ministry, and it cannot be tested in a Court of Law. I think the Clause has no justification, and personally, if my hon. Friends do not divide against it, I certainly shall.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I am quite sure no one in the House wishes in any way to delay the activities of the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Pensions. On the other hand, there is a difference of opinion as to the means whereby these powers should be granted for getting the facilities which they think they require. Why they should be treated differently from other Departments of the Government which require compulsorily to take property, land, and so on, I fail to see. The House and the country during the War have already shown their very great disgust of the continuance of the arbitrary powers necessarily taken during the War. The Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture both required special powers in order to serve their people, while those Ministers are now making the excuse in this matter, that is to say, the discharged soldier. Both of these Departments required special powers, and got them, the one for housing the soldier and the other for settling him on the land. They came to the House last Session, brought in an ordinary measure, which passed and gave them these other powers. Why should not the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Pensions receive power in the same way by an ordinary measure instead of seeking to continue these Regulations? If they had taken time by the forelock, as the Ministry of Health did in relation to the
Housing and Town Planning Bill, and also as in the powers given under the Land Acquisition Bill, have gone about the matter in a more regular way. They would have avoided these discussions and proposals, which are against the public opinion of the country. This opinion is against the taking of arbitrary powers which are given under D.O.R.A. Therefore, I hope we shall see that the powers obtained under the ordinary and common law last Session are extended to these Departments, rather than they should be given special powers under D.O.R.A.

Sir E. POLLOCK: A somewhat serious statement has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hohler), which I desire to take the first opportunity of refuting. I do not quite know on what ground he made it, but he suggested—if I caught his words aright—that steps had been taken to defer the hearing of the De Keyser case in the interest of the Executive. I desire to say that that is absolutely without foundation—absolutely!

Mr. HOHLER: My point was that the case, in the ordinary course, would have been heard in the House of Lords long since, and it has not been heard. That is all I say.

Sir E. POLLOCK: Let us understand what it does mean. It would have been heard in the ordinary course, but it has not. For some reason or another, somehow, some way, intervention has been made to prevent it being heard. What is the suggestion? What is the inference which hon. Members are asked to draw? Am I very far wrong in suggesting that the only inference, if inference at all, that is to be drawn is the inference which I thought was suggested to the House, namely, that in some way the Law Officers of the Crown, or some person who is responsible for the handling of the case, was responsible for having this trial delayed? The House will judge if I am wrong. I do not want in the least to draw a sinister inference. But the words fell from a responsible Member of the House. But whatever be the inference that should be drawn, let me say there has been no step taken of any sort, kind, or description to delay the hearing of the case. On the contrary, we have been very anxious that it should be heard. There have been many reasons why we
hoped it might have been heard before we adjourned at Christmas. We have been very anxious indeed it should have been heard, but the House of Lords arranges its own business in its own way. I am glad to think, so far as my information goes, it is likely to be heard this very next week.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any reply to what was asked by my hon. and learned Friend about the future of these cases?

Sir E. POLLOCK: Obviously I can give no answer to my hon. and learned Friend. He was good enough to tell me yesterday that he was going to ask me about these matters. I looked forward to listening to his speech, and listened to it with pleasure. But, as he will quite well know, he put the number of questions incapable of answer.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Hear, hear, incapable!

Sir E. POLLOCK: It would be absolutely wrong for me to say anything on the De Keyser case. My hon. and learned Friend, who is a member of the English Bar, knows perfectly well it would be irregular and improper to say a single word as to giving an undertaking that a different course will be pursued. Obviously, that is an undertaking which no discreet or sensible person could or would give. I must decline to give it. In regard to the Cannon Brewery case, that depended upon quite different circumstances, and of quite a different order from the De Keyser case. But the hon. and learned Gentleman who put forward these matters knows that quite well. In regard to the Newcastle Brewery case, as I have already stated, an appeal will be entered in that case from the judgment of Mr. Justice Salter. This also is a case on which I can offer no information. We are asking, I may add, for these Regulations to be continued, and in doing so we are not asking for any increased validity. We are simply asking that they should remain as they are until 31st August.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This is a very important matter. I am not a lawyer. I do not know the rights and wrongs of the De Keyser case, but, according to the statement put forward by a couple of hon. Members, I understand that the activities are in regard to
the disabled soldier. Is it a fact—and this is rather important—that under these powers any building can be seized by the Crown and the people asked to go, and the subject has no redress in a court of law? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I certainly hope then we will go to a Division. I hope that no such power will be given to the Crown under the present circumstances. It is tyranny!

Captain W. BENN: One would not desire the Solicitor-General to enter into the merits of cases before the courts. That is quite understood. But, as I understand my hon. Friend, he merely cited these cases as evidence of what may be the effect of these Sections of the Act. I myself think that a noticeable feature of this Debate has been the tendency of the Government, and the Government supporters, to claim that these are powers already exercised by the Government Departments, quite irrespective of the War. My hon. Friend said the Government Departments ought to have this power. All I will say on that is this; While it is extremely desirable a Government Department could be properly housed, it is extremely undesirable that they should be empowered because they are Government Departments to turn people out of houses they may happen to want. That is the point. We understand the genesis of a good deal of this Bill. Government Departments are very loath to relax or to let go the powers that they have acquired during the War. Probably this Section, and a good deal of the Bill, simply consisted of a collection of memoranda of the Government Departments of the powers which they did not want to let go if they could possibly help it. So they are embodied generally in the Bill without any rhyme or reason. Some of these powers have been moved right out without any explanation during the passage of this Bill. The right hon. Gentle man the Member for Peebles asked Ministers this question: "What about all these premises that are held now by the Shipping Controller, the Coal Controller, and all the other controls, and by ad hoc War emergency administrations?" Surely there is sufficient accommodation owing to the demobilisation of these Departments taking place for the activities of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Pensions. I must say that we ought
not to allow the matter to turn so as to make it appear, when we are opposing these arbitrary powers being granted to the Government Departments, that that opposition extends to the beneficent work of the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Pensions. We think it is a question of a little better organisation by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We do not believe that we shall be hampering their work. The Minister for Labour says we shall. He is taking power because we are in fact discussing the Amendment, which he puts forward under D.O.B.A. for the purpose of carrying into effect, to the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915. I understand from what he said that that accommodation is urgently required; is that so?

Sir R. HORNE: indicated assent.

Captain W. BENN: Under that Act in connection with the work devolving on the right hon. Gentleman from the Ministry of Pensions. But he is not taking power to take buildings at all. That is the curious thing! If hon. Members will read the Amendment they will see it only gives the Minister compulsory power to secure "land." There is no word about "houses." What, then, becomes of the argument that if we do not permit him to take land we are somehow preventing him getting buildings? I have had no legal training, and I may be wrong; but I have read the Amendment. It appears to me that the argument that we are hampering the work falls to the ground. The point of substance raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Down is, after all, a very serious point. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had been accepted earlier in the day there would not have been so much objection to these powers, because we should have known that if we had premises taken away in this arbitrary manner, those concerned would have had the right, which all subjects ought to have, of appealing to the courts for proper compensation. The Government did not accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. In consequence, in a time of peace, the Government is asking to be allowed to commandeer new premises, and the people who may be turned out, to the detriment of their business, are not to get anything but an arbitrary ex gratia compensation
which the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission may happen to grant.
There is another point. How long are these powers to continue? We have never had that cleared up. Are they continued to August 31st, or when? Supposing negotiations with the Turks go on indefinitely, and the Government care to take advantage of the letter of the law as to the legal termination of the war, and not to declare by Order in Council that the war is over until the last ratification has been exchanged between the last belligerents, which might very well be Venezuela and Bulgaria? Supposing, I say, the Government care to take advantage of that. These premises may be occupied for 18 months. I suggest that what has been put so well by my hon. Friends are points of substance, which really do demand a more serious reply on the part of the Government.

Captain BOWYER: I wish to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. In his wisdom he has refused my Amendment, and I do not see any other course, now that the general principle has been refused, than to object to the exercise of any arbitrary powers which may have been necessary in the war which infringe upon the rights of the subject. If these powers are necessary, will the right hon. Gentleman not give his loyal supporters a full explanation as to how long these powers are to go on. I want to know,

must they end on the 31st August, and can they, in no circumstances, go beyond that date? Why is it that a subject, as regards compensation, is not allowed to have his ordinary remedy in the ordinary courts of the land?

Major BARNES: The House has the strongest possible desire to help the Ministry of Pensions, but there is the most intense dislike to any continuance of this commandeering of buildings. If hon. Members will reflect for a moment I think they will see that the best way to help the Minister of Pensions and the Minister of Labour in this matter is by refusing to give them this extension. They have powers at the present time to take all the buildings they require, and if we give them this extension it simply means we are giving them more time for them to delay the exercise of their present powers. We want to see these Government Departments getting a move on, and if we refuse this extension then they will bring their schemes to immediate fruition. I am sure every hon. Member is anxious to see Government Departments move in this matter, and we can do nothing better to expedite their work and to give them an impetus than to refuse this extension.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 85.

Division No. 18.]
AYES.
[7.19 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Denison-Pender, John C.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Dixon, Captain Herbert


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Bridgeman, William Clive
Donald, Thompson


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Brittain, Sir Harry
Doyle, N. Grattan


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Britton, G. B.
Duncannon, Viscount


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Bruton, Sir James
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Atkey, A. R.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Falcon, Captain Michael


Baird, John Lawrence
Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.


Baldwin, Stanley
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Fell, Sir Arthur


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Campbell, J. D. G.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Carr, W. Theodore
Foreman, Henry


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Forestier-Walker, L.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Forrest, Walter


Barnett, Major R. W.
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Barnston, Major Harry
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Clough, Robert
Gardner, Ernest


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Coats, Sir Stuart
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Bas'gst'ke)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Bigland, Alfred
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Goff, Sir R. Park


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gould, James C.


Blair, Major Reginald
Courthope, Major George L.
Grant, James A.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)


Berwick, Major G. O.
Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Green, Albert (Derby)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page
Griggs, Sir Peter


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Dawes, James Arthur
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Hallwood, Augustine
Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Manville, Edward
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Martin, Captain A. E.
Seager, Sir William


Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mason, Robert
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)
Matthews, David
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Higham, Charles Frederick
Mitchell, William Lane
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Moles, Thomas
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Hills, Major John Waller
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Hinds, John
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Hood, Joseph
Morison, Thomas Brash
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Morrison Bell, Major A. C.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Mosley, Oswald
Stevens, Marshall


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Mount, William Arthur
Stewart, Gershom


Hopkins, John W. W.
Murchison, C. K.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Neal, Arthur
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hurd, Percy A.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Tickler, Thomas George


Hurst, Major Gerald B.
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Jephcott, A. R.
Oman, Charles William C.
Waring, Major Walter


Jesson, C.
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Parker, James
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Pearce, Sir William
Whitla, Sir William


Kellaway, Frederick George
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Perkins, Walter Frank
Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower)


Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Prescott, Major W. H.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Lindsay, William Arthur
Purchase, H. G.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Lonsdale, James Rolston
Ramsden, G. T.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lorden, John William
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Woolcock, William James U.


Lort-Williams, J.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Renwick, George
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Younger, Sir George


Macmaster, Donald
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)



Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Rodger, A. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Capt. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Glanville, Harold James
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hanna, George Boyle
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rae, H. Norman


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hirst, G. H.
Redmond, Captain William Archer


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Robertson, John


Briant, Frank
Irving, Dan
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Briggs, Harold
Johnstone, Joseph
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bromfield, William
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Royce, William Stapleton


Brown, Captain D. C.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kiley, James D.
Smithers, Sir Alfred w.


Cairns, John
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Swan, J. E. C.


Cape, Thomas
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Taylor, J.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Casey, T. W.
Lloyd, George Butler
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cautley, Henry S.
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Cope, Major Wm.
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)



Gange, E. Stanley
Myers, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Colonel Penry Williams and Sir F. Banbury.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, in Regulation 2 AB, to leave out the words "the Minister of Pensions if after due inquiry he" and to insert instead thereof the words
the power of taking possession of land certified to be required for carrying into effect the Naval and Military War Pensions, &c., Act, 1915: Provided that such power shall not be exercised unless after due inquiry the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Pensions (as the case may be).
I would like to remind the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain W. Benn) that Regulation 2AB deals with the very question which he raised, and describes the land as including the buildings thereon. Therefore, what this Amendment does is to make it perfectly clear that the Minister of Labour is to have the same power as the Minister of Pensions in acquiring land with the buildings thereon, and he is also to have the same qualifications which apply to the Minister of Pensions. I do not think I need say anything more in explaining this Amendment, because it is simply to carry out the object of the Schedule.

Captain W. BENN: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It certainly came as a surprise to me, owing to my ignorance of the law, that when we read in an Amendment the word "land" it means premises and buildings. I suppose that those more familiar with the law than I am understood, but this is a warning to us in reading Amendments, that words which appear or may appear harmless, really may have an implication wider and larger, and this should put us on our guard in watching Government Amendments. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman or the Solicitor-General would answer my question as to what is the duration of this power to take premises. Is it until August 31st, or the end of the War? Supposing it is the end of the War, if by an Order in Council may, under the Termination of the War Definition Act, that comes after the 31st August, do these powers persist until that date, or have we in the part of the Bill that has been passed definitely stated a term, namely 31st August next?

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order, Mr. SPEAKER. Might I call your attention to the fact that this Amendment is intended to be added to column 3. At the head of column 3 I notice the words: "Limitations, qualifications and
modifications subject to which extension is made." I submit that the effect of the addition by the Ministry of Labour of the words, "The power of taking possession of land," qualifies the Regulation, and that it applies to land only and not to buildings.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a legal matter, and not for me.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I shall be very glad if I can to give an explanation to the hon. and gallant Member (Capt. W. Benn.) We are dealing with a Bill which has already expressed in definite terms, in Clause 2, that the Regulation mentioned in the first column of the Second Schedule of this Act shall, subject to the limitations, qualifications, and modifications specified in the third column of that Schedule, continue in force until the 31st day of August, 1920, and that is all. This Bill—and hon. Members who heard me say this before will forgive me for saying it again—is concerned to continue the Regulations under it until the 31st August, 1920. There are in existence, under the Defence of the Realm Act, powers which will depend upon the time when peace is legally declared. Those powers are not dealt with in this Bill; they exist entirely outside, and it would be out of order to deal with them in this Bill. This Bill deals with the Regulations only, and continues them until August 31st, and no more.

Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman. This Amendment speaks of: "The power of taking possession of land certified to be required for carrying into effect the Naval and Military War Pensions Acts, &c., 1915." I understand, or propose to understand, that "land" means buildings as well as land.

Sir E. POLLOCK: General Regulations.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have here the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, but I cannot find out anything about land in it at all. It is all about the appointment of Local or District Committees, who shall decide, in any particular case, whether, as respects a wife, widow, or child or other dependant, any pension or grant or separation allowance, and, as respects an officer or man, any supplementary grant has, under the
regulations subject to which it was graned, become forfeited. They have also to decide, as between two or more claimants to any pension or grant or separation allowance, which, if any, of the claimants is entitled thereto, and all sorts of things like that. The effect of the Act is to set up a Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, which is to have 27 members. There are also a variety of other people who are to deal with all those things, to administer funds and make grants in specific cases for the purpose of enabling widows, children, and other dependants of deceased officers and men to obtain training and employment. If this is where the land comes in, there is nothing here about it, and I should like to know what it is they are really going to do. Are they going to give the Ministry of Labour power to acquire land to do all sorts of things? I served on the Committee on National Expenditure, and I found that, of all the Ministerial Departments dealing with buildings, the Ministry of Labour was far and away the worst. They took over all sorts of absurd buildings; they would not take an office in a back street, but they must have it in a front street; and all that sort of thing. Therefore, I think we must be very careful before we extend this provision, and we must really know what is intended by putting in the word "land" and not "building."

Sir E. POLLOCK: I shall be very glad to answer the right hon. Baronet if I can. But I always speak with hesitation when I answer him because I remember it is on record that before a Committee he claimed on some occasion, and the House was grateful to him for claiming, to act as third Law Officer, and I always have a little doubt in replying.

Sir F. BANBURY: That was not quite so. All I said was that, as there were no Law Officers present on one occasion, I had endeavoured to supply the want.

Sir E. POLLOCK: Well, if the right hon. Baronet is able to supply the want of the Law Officers and yet cannot answer these questions for himself with all his parliamentary knowledge and experience and acuteness, I have some hesitation in venturing to offer a solution. However, the best I can do is this. The point is that we are endeavouring to continue, if the House will allow us to do so, this
Regulation, 2AB, which says that it shall be lawful for the Commissioner of Works to take possession of any land, including buildings thereon. So the very Regulation itself gives power to the Department of the Government which takes the buildings to take land, including buildings thereon, and that is the phrase used in the Regulation itself. Then my right hon. Friend says, "Yes, but why is it taken for the purpose of carrying into effect the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915?" and he very rightly points out that that Act is concerned with the administration of pensions and with widows' allowances, and so on. But with his kindly and critical mind, he would be the very last person to suggest that they should carry on those duties in the street. They must really have some house, some home, where they can discuss and deal adequately with these matters. So it is that those persons concerned in carrying out the duties thrust on them by the War Pensions Acts, go to the Department of the Government which is concerned to supply proper premises for these purposes—the Commissioner of Works—and say: "We must have some place to carry on our business." Thereupon the Commissioner of Works is empowered, under Regulation 2AB, for the purpose of providing adequate rooms and accommodation, to take land, and the buildings thereon, in order that the persons who have the duty of carrying out the responsibilities placed upon them by the Act may have somewhere to deal with those matters, and that those who are concerned in their proper administration may have some office where they can come to see them.

Major BARNES: The Solicitor-General is very patient and very lucid, and places the house under a very deep obligation in the way he makes clear a very complicated subject. I want to ask a question to clear up a point which is still doubtful in my mind. I rather gathered that under Regulation 2AB the Minister of Pensions is in a sort of preferential position as regards the Minister of Labour, as between paragraphs I and 2 of Regulation 2AB, and that the effect of the Amendment proposed by the Minister of Labour is to put the Ministry of Labour in as favourable a position as the Ministry of Pensions. I should like to know if that is so, and if at the present time there is this preferential advantage, what benefit
the Ministry of Pensions has over the Ministry of Labour in enjoying the advantages of the War Pensions Act, which, I understand, the Minister of Labour now desires to secure for his Department.

Sir R. HORNE: There is no question of preference. The Ministry of Pensions has got to carry out the powers under this Act. One of the powers they originally had was to pay disabled soldiers, and for that they required premises. In May last year the duty of providing pensions for disabled soldiers was transferred to the Ministry of Labour, and that duty being laid on them, it was necessary that the Ministry of Labour should get powers to carry it out. In this Schedule the draughtsman made a mistake in the third column in omitting the Ministry of Labour, and it was necessary to amend it to give them the power required. It is not a question of preference, but it is only a matter of enabling them to carry out their duties.

Major M. WOOD: May we have the opinion of the Government on the matter raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend just now? I quite understand that the word "land" legally includes buildings, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at Regulation 2AB, he will see there that power is given to take possession of any land including buildings thereon. In the Amendment moved by the Minister of Labour the words used are "possession of land," and the words "including buildings thereon" are loft out. Now, is it not reasonable to assume that there is some object in leaving those words out from the Amendment? I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks about that point, because it may come up and have serious development later.

Sir R. HORNE: I myself have no difficulty about this matter, but there is certainly great anxiety on the part of hon. Members about it, and if it will in any way appease their state of mind I should be delighted to put in, and I now move to do so, and to add after the word "land" the words "including buildings thereon" as in the original Regulations. Then I think everybody will be satisfied.

Amendment made to proposed Amendment, after the word "land" insert the
words "including buildings thereon".—[Sir R. Horne.]

Words proposed, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I beg to move to leave out Regulation 2B.
By this Amendment we seek to remove Regulation 2B, which gives power to requisition war material and stores. I understand that this Regulation now is only to apply to flax and articles of food controlled by the Food Controller. With regard to flax, I followed very closely the arguments advanced by the hon. Member who, in Committee, represented the Board of Trade. So far as I could make out, there is a shortage in the crop of flax owing to the difficulty of importing that article from Russia. But it is not a very serious shortage, as the normal importation of flax is, I understand, about 18,000 tons, and this year it is expected the importation will reach 15,000 tons. The shortage, therefore, will only be about 3,000 tons. Flax is, of course, a very important article and I quite agree that the price of it should be kept within reason, but I am not at all sure that the continuation of this Regulation will keep the price down to a reasonable extent. The hon. Member who represented the Board of Trade told us in Committee that it had been agreed between the trade and the grower that it was necessary, in order to carry this out, to fix a guaranteed price. That could only be done under Regulations 2B and 2E, and he informed us that the price had been fixed to the satisfaction of everybody by agreement between the two sections of the trade concerned. I would, how over, respectfully suggest to the Department that it has not been fixed quite satisfactorily to everybody, for they appear to have forgotten the consumer entirely, and have allowed the grower and the buyer to fix a price which will give extravagant profits to both at the expense of the consumer. This is the effect on the consumer of Government control. The Government are interfering with the ordinary course of trade in a very bad manner, and the consequence is that the consumer suffers. If we are to have an opportunity on Regulations 2F and 2J to discuss the powers of food control I would press the right hon. Gentleman opposite to consider whether on those two Regulations we could not deal with the whole of
the powers of the Food Controller. We want to know, in fact, what policy the Government is going to adopt with regard to the continuance of food control. Are we going to have it continued, or are we going to have de-control article by article; also, when an article has been de-controlled, are we going to have re-control of that article, to be followed again by de-control?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member cannot discuss that now. It should come up at a later stage.

Colonel WILLIAMS: But under our new Rules of Procedure I may not get an opportunity of discussing it. Can you promise, Sir, there will be such an opportunity?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must wait and see. It all depends on what progress is made.

Colonel WILLIAMS: I will take your advice, and wait and see, and will therefore content myself by formally moving the Amendment.

Mr. MacVEAGH: In the course of the discussion a few moments ago it was remarked that I had said I intended to ask information on various points to-day. I think I have been very modest as up to the present I have only spoken once and then on a very legitimate point. The point I am now going to take is also quite a substantial one, and it is not raised by me out of any mere desire to delay the progress of the business. On this question of flax I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member who has just spoken. It is very important that the price of flax should be kept down to a reasonable figure. It is largely grown in my constituency, and I want to have some authoritative statement from the Government, before it gives increased powers with regard to commandeering flax, as to what their policy is to be. I do not know if I can be told anything to-night. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman now in charge of Food Control has ever seen a piece of Irish flax, and I do not believe that the Solicitor-General has ever even seen a piece of English flax. But I want to deal with the position of which I complain. You have taken control off English flax. You propose to continue your power to commandeer Irish flax. What is the
effect of that? It means you are going to commandeer and control flax in Ireland while you leave it uncontrolled in England. I hope someone will tell us on what principle it is going to be worked. I quite agree with the hon. Member who spoke last that it is in the public interest that flax should be kept as cheap as possible, but I object to benefitting the English farmer at the cost of the Irish farmer, and I want to know on what basis you are going.

Mr. LYNN: I wish briefly to associate myself with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken, with whom I do not often find myself in agreement. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment pointed out that it was necessary to have flax at a low price. The result of control in Ireland has been that the acreage under flax last year decreased by 50,000. That is simply due to the dissatisfaction which control has created. It is most important that we should have a large supply of flax. In the past we have been largely dependent on Russia for it, and we do not know when we are going to get supplies from there again. We have, therefore, to look to ourselves to raise the flax necessary to keep the industry going. If you go on controlling flax, the Ulster farmer will cease growing it, and I will tell you why. The result of control is that the Ulster farmer to-day is only getting one third of the market value of his flax. It is being sold for £300 per ton in Ireland at the controlled price, whereas it runs up as high as £1,000 per ton elsewhere. Why should there be this differentiation as against the Ulster farmer who, after all, did magnificent service for you in the War, and produced the flax which provided you with linen for aeroplanes? On one occasion I put a supplementary question to the President of the Board of Trade as to whether it was intended to remove control for the present year, and the reply was distinctly that the control would be removed. If the President of the Board of Trade has made up his mind that the control is to be removed, why is this provision being put in this Schedule? We are not at war now, but if it is necessary to get flax in any emergency, you may be sure that the Ulster farmer will not leave you in the lurch, because there is no more loyal man in the whole Empire. He has always
done his duty, and he will do it in future, but there is no reason why he should not have the full market value of his flax. Therefore, I protest most strongly against the control of flax being continued.

8.0 P.M.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): With regard to the statement made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) that the difference in the amount of flax expected to be imported is only the difference as between 15,000 tons and 18,000 tons, I may state that the difference is really as between 15,000 and 80,000, the normal import being 80,000, and 15,000 tons being the quantity expected in the present season. Therefore the shortage will be very serious indeed. I fail to understand how it can be argued that the consumer will be any worse off because the crop is controlled. With regard to what fell from the hon. Member for the Woodvale Division of Belfast (Mr. Lynn), I think I can explain the position. The growing of English flax was merely a small experiment carried out by the Board of Agriculture; the larger part of the growth is Irish flax. I may say at once that the control is not intended to be extended to flax grown during the present year. It only refers to the crop of 1919. If control were taken off now, and if the prices having been fixed and a considerable portion of the crop having been already sold at the guaranteed price, if we were to allow the remainder of the crop to be sold in the open market, it would be obviously unfair to those who kept their bargain with the Government and sold their crop at the price fixed, should we permit those who, from design or by accident, had some flax still on their hands, to reap the advantage of higher prices. That is the reason why it is sought to continue this control until 31st August, merely in order to dispose, on fair terms to all concerned, of the crop of 1919.

Major O'NEILL: This question affects a large number of my constituents who grow flax in the North of Ireland. It is satisfactory to farmers to know that their flax is not going to be controlled next year. But as far as one can see, the world price of flax will be very much higher in future than the present con-
trolled price. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to look into a question which is leading to very great dissatisfaction, that is the question of the grading of this flax which is being sold under control. An understanding was arrived at last year between the Ulster farmers and the Flax Control Board, as the result of which the control price was raised by 10s. to a maximum of 45s. a stone and a minimum of 35s. a stone. The actual price paid depends upon the grade in which the flax is placed by the people who have to grade it for the markets. The farmers thought the understanding was that they would receive an average price of 40s. a stone for their flax, that is, half-way between the top and the bottom; but the grading is carried out in such a way that in a large number of cases the farmers feel aggrieved and consider that their flax has been graded too low. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to see that that question is looked into and that the grading should be carried out properly, and that the Government does not take advantage of placing the flax in low grades in order to have to give a lower price than the flax is really worth.

Major BARNES: I think friendly critics of the Government will not describe their attitude on the Bill as being unyielding when one compares the size of the Bill as introduced with its size at present. They have made very considerable concessions. Flax has had a sort of special treatment on this Bill. When it was brought before the Committee on 26th November last the provision related not only to flax but to every other article not being an article of food, and the Government made a very considerable concession at that time and withdrew all other articles not being articles of food with the exception of this article of flax. They adhered to that for reasons which were set out by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bridgeman). This Government does not, I think, even with regard to this Bill any more than a great many other Bills, base itself unconditionally and absolutely upon the thing as it stands. Events influence them in the action they take. I suggest that one or two things have transpired since November which may perhaps lead the Minister in charge of the Bill to feel that if he cannot accept the whole of the Amendment he might allow the part with regard to flax to be dropped. Here is what the
hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bridgeman) said in November:
Owing to the great shortage of supplies of flax from Russia, it is not anticipated that more than 15,000 tons Trill come in this year.
A very considerable change has occurred with regard to the attitude of the Government towards Russia since that time. I think the wildest imagination in November, 1919, would hardly have believed that we should be contemplating a policy of commercial intercourse with Russia. That, of course, is now an established thing, and it has received a very considerable advance by the terms read out by the Leader of the House, We may reasonably expect during the coining year a very considerable importation of flax from Russia. I suggest to the Minister in charge that that might be taken into account in meeting the views which have been expressed from both sides of the House in removing the control from flax.
There is another matter upon which, perhaps, he will give us a little information before we leave this point. He said the duties of the Flax Control Board have not come to an end with the War. I do not know whether at the time when he was speaking the Flax Control Board or the Board of Trade had decided to part with the buildings and factories they had in their hands. I understand the Government expended very considerable sums of money, approaching to nearly £1,000,000, on taking land and erecting buildings for the purpose of carrying out some processes with regard to flax. Very proper measures were taken in connection with the War, but clearly the Flax Control Board or the Board of Trade has come to the conclusion that as far as that goes they need not go on with it any longer, because I asked the President of the Board of Trade the other day a question as to what had occurred in connection with the disposal of the flax-works, and I got to-day a very full reply, in which he tells me that the whole of them have been disposed of.

Mr. SPEAKER: How can this arise upon these Regulations?

Major BARNES: I thought one of the reasons for keeping this control of flax was that the Flax Control Board had certain duties with regard to this material, and that part of their policy had been the spending of a great deal of money on land
and buildings for carrying on processes in regard to flax, and as they had come to the decision that it is no longer necessary for them to do that, and had parted with the land and buildings, I thought that might be a reason which, had occurred between November and the present day for the change in their policy, and might be a reason for granting this concession. Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain for what purpose this very large sum of money was incurred with regard to flax, and what led to the disposal of these works?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on the Regulations. The question of the expenditure of money upon buildings in carrying on operations does not arise at all.

Major BARNES: I take it that this Regulation has relationship to the policy of the Government with regard to this material, and as their policy must be regarded as a whole and a change in any part of it is likely to affect other parts, it seems to me that the very great change they have made in disposing of all this land and buildings might probably lead them to make a still further change and drop the whole of this measure of control. At all events, I shall be very grateful to the Solicitor-General if he can show reason why they should retain a portion of their policy of control over flax when they have abandoned what appears to me a very much larger and more important feature of their action with regard to it. I understand that the continuing of this control will affect the price of flax. Hon. Members have pointed out that in Ireland the farmers of Ulster are being placed at a disadvantage by the continuance of this control. They are being prevented from obtaining in the markets the price which otherwise they might obtain. It is important that the Government should clear itself from any suspicion of keeping on this control which will prejudice the farmers of Ulster and perhaps be an advantage to those persons who have taken over from the Government these great processes for flax production.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I thank the hon. Member (Major Barnes) for saying that we have endeavoured to meet hon. Members as far as we could. I can only repeat the answer which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Certain prices have been guaran-
teed as to flax and certain persons have sold their flax under and in relation to those guarantees. It is quite impossible to take off the control of prices, because we should be doing an injustice to those who have already sold, and possibly we should be giving an opportunity to those who were free of control to get an advantage which has been denied to those who have sold so far. We are only asking for these Regulations to be continued so far as they relate to the powers of the Food Controllers and as to flax. The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that there is at present a very severe shortage of flax. We may hope, in the course of time, that an increased quantity will come from Russia, but he would be an over-sanguine optimist who expected that before the 31st August, which is the date to which this Regulation is to be continued, the deficiency can be overcome. We discussed this matter in Committee and in the House a good deal, and I had hoped that the House would be good enough to give us this Amendment, so that we might begin the other Amendment when we start the consideration of the Bill another time. We might now settle the question either by a Division or by the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I would comply with the request of the Solicitor-General if he had accepted the suggestion which was thrown out in a friendly spirit by the hon. Member (Major Barnes). I do not think the Solicitor-General yet realises the very violent and vehement feeling there is on this feeling in Ulster.

It being a Quarter past eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

Orders of the Day — LIQUOR TRAFFIC (RESTRICTIONS)

Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move,
That this House, while not desiring to return to the pre-War hours of opening licensed premises, is of opinion that all vexatious and unnecessary restraints and restrictions upon the liberty of the subject in respect of the strength, supply, and consumption of alcoholic liquors should be abolished.
Some responsibility always attaches to anyone who speaks to what has just been described as the Whispering Gallery of the world, and it seems to me that a greater
responsibility than usual attaches to anyone who speaks now when a pitched battle is being waged between the Press and Parliament as to which shall govern the country. I have not put down my Motion to-night with any idea of censuring the Central Control Board for its action during the War, the Government, or the Chairman of the Central Control Board, who has, I am told, just resigned. I believe that at the present time the teetotal and Prohibition element is very active and very powerful.

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

Sir J. D. REES: It would be, possibly, advantageous to the Government to have a manifestation of the opinion held on the other side, if such opinion is held, and as to which some evidence may be afforded to-night. I do not speak with the slightest hostility to the Government, and I believe that if this Motion takes the turn which I hope it may it will be even advantageous to them. In the King's Speech it was stated that
experience during the War showed clearly the injurious effects upon national efficiency of the excessive consumption of strong drink—
as to which we had some idea before the War—
and the amelioration both in health and efficiency which followed appropriate measures of regulation and control
That points directly to the Carlisle experiment. It is obviously based upon that experience. The immediate object of my Motion is to deprecate the continuance of the Defence of the Realm Act during peace, and to pray that the Bill which will be introduced may be drawn mild, as I understand good beer should be. What is the national call for a Bill in regard to this matter? Did the Prohibitionist element show up well in the General Election? Mr. Chancellor obtained 1,500 votes out of 45,000, Mr. Leif Jones obtained 3,600 out of 34,000, Mr. Outhwaite 2,700 out of 32,000, and Mr. Rowntree a little over 1,000 votes out of 34,000, and so on.

Mr. W. THORNE: What about my Division?

Sir J. D. REES: If my hon. Friend will only allow me to proceed he will have an opportunity of reducing me to mincemeat later, and I hope he will wait for that happy consummation. These results show
very clearly that the powerful position of the Prohibition movement—and it obviously is a very powerful position—is certainly not represented in the votes recorded in their favour at the General Election. A Member for Nottingham, so near to the Rushcliffe Division, knows that well. Yet they are pressing the Government for a Bill. They first of all want to continue the drastic regulations which the Control Board exercised under D.O.R.A., and then they want a Bill. I will not lose time by going into the ethics of the question. Let me say broadly that the teetotaller is an agitator, every single one of them. The person who drinks does not go about asking everybody else to have a glass; but the man who does not drink spends his life in trying to persuade people not to drink. Those are fundamentally different positions. The moderate drinker welcomes the teetotaller, hut the teetotaller calls the moderate drinker a "son of Belial flown with insolence and wine." [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] He is so proud of his own milk diet, by which he robs the children of the country, that he can find no favour for the vintage of France, the whisky of Scotland, or the beer of his own country. And yet during the War the Government of France, that conspicuously temperate nation in which in the wine districts even the children drink wine, in 1916 supplied 792,000,000 quart-bottles of wine to the soldiers, who were refreshed by it and fought like men. What is the experience to which the King's Speech refers which justifies the introduction of the Bill? What did the State learn during the War? It learned to encourage whisky as a drink in preference to beer, and it learned to cultivate a taste for bad, as distinguished from good, whisky, by levying a flat rate upon the whole lot.
I do not blame the State—I believe that the Government did all it could. I do not think that any Government could have done better. It is not that the Government is bad. It is that the system of State administration is bad, and is only permissible during the special circumstances of the War. I do not attack the Board or the Government. If you want a good example of good liquor administration you must go to Russia, where it resulted in revolution. I do not see my hon. Friends the Members for
West and Central Nottingham (Mr. Hayday and Mr. Atkey), but they will remember that they stood on a platform with me at Nottingham when we were asking the people to subscribe to a Government loan, and that we heard the cry, "Less loan, more beer!" That was the cry on all sides. "Give us good decent beer to drink and then we will talk about subscribing to your loan." The Government Bill obviously will be based on the Carlisle experiment. They will dwell upon Carlisle with great satisfaction. I submit that Carlisle was not a success, and my Motion, if carried, would involve the dissolution of the Control Board and deprecate its re-creation. But those who are in favour of it would say, "We are not in favour of the resuscitation of the Control Board," but
A merchant to conceal his treasure
Conveys it by a borrowed name.
Teetotallers camouflage their measure—
It spells Control Board all the same.
We are told that experience during the War shows that excessive indulgence in strong drink is injurious. But surely that was already known. Who denies it? Nobody connected with the trade. Then they say that there was an amelioration of health and efficiency from the experiments that were made. There was inefficiency perhaps, but the Prime Minister, who took matters in hand with his well-known zeal, corrected it, and I deny that there was national inefficiency. As compared with what standard was there inefficiency? Did any country show a better standard? What was that inefficiency that was to justify the total removal of the privilege of having a glass of beer or a pint of wine? There was greater sobriety during the war, no doubt—and there is greater sobriety still—when all the strong young men were away fighting for their country. There were some left behind—they were the teetotallers, the prohibitionists, the abolitionists. It was they who stayed at home to reap the advantage of the fighting which the moderate drinkers did. Then there were higher prices, which, of course, reduced consumption. Then there were no convivial parties during the War, which also reduced consumption. It was said that one of the reasons for introducing this Bill was to deal with labour which was absent after a bout of drinking. But it turned out on inquiry that the chief absentees were teetotallers. Also it has
been proved that the unscheduled parts of the country showed up just as well in respect of the improvement as those parts which were scheduled. Carlisle, greatly favoured, took over all the shops and breweries, the whole trade, killed competition, called it profits, and then showed no better returns than any other part of the country. If any hon. Member doubts that, I have the figures here, though I do not propose to throw more figures than are absolutely necessary at those who are kind enough to listen to me.
But Carlisle was always a sober town. Now it is more than a sober town. It is a desperately dismal town. The convictions for drunkenness were five, a week and that sort of figure before the War. During the War the convictions dropped from a total of 239 in 1913 to 80 in 1918. Six other towns with somewhat the same population have experienced far greater reductions in the convictions for drunkenness than Carlisle which was the scene of this splendid experiment. There is no proof whatever from the figures as to convictions for drunkenness that Carlisle is any better than anywhere else. What was the cost to the taxpayer of this experiment of the control of the city and 300 miles of rural country, hamlets and villages in Dumfriesshire which were submitted to this iron rule? What items were included in the debits against this 15 per cent. profit shown in Carlisle? I should like to see the figures more carefully scrutinised. Amateur financiers leave out half the debits which a professional financier would put in before he strikes a balance. Why, nobody who has ever kept a chicken is ignorant of that. What does the public think of this successful experiment, the working man, the man who worked through this War? Carlisle is a kind of country Clapham Junction. You cannot keep away from Carlisle. Whether you take a fast train to the north or crawl down south by the highland railway, or meander all the day across Northumberland, you get to Carlisle. You see the rosy towers of the castle which turns out to be a prison. You get there always—after time. I know the feelings of the people not only from being a fellow sufferer, having been in Carlisle repeatedly before and since the War. Whenever you go to Carlisle and see the rosy walls you will remember
those two famous lines of a prize poem at Oxford:
Match me this marvel save in Eastern clime
A rose-red city, half as old as time.
and will probably re-write them thus:
Match this injustice save in Britain's clime.
A rose-red city, always after time.
Whenever I got to Carlisle, without any desire to "glory and drink deep," I could never get the simplest refreshment. Though you could not get liquor in Carlisle, you could at least go to Government establishments and get a very good dinner—at the expense of the taxpayers. It took the bread out of the mouth of the hotel-keepers of Carlisle and of the public in Carlisle, who disliked it too; but it enabled the temperance folk to quote the great and glorious experiment.
In the time of our forefathers there was a Star Chamber. This is a Three-Star Chamber. They acquire properties illegally, and no doubt at a cheap price; you can do that if you take things without paying for them, and you might even show a good balance sheet. They referred the unhappy people who were deprived of their property to the War Losses Commission, which the judges said has nothing whatever to do with the subject. They issued warning that no compensation was due for their action, which the Court said was untrue. And so they went on until the Cannon case occurred. I hope the House will forgive me if I refer to this case, for I submit, on behalf of the vast majority of the people of this country, that this matter has never been really placed before them. The Central Control Board gave 10 days' notice and took over certain premises. The Cannon Brewery did not take it lying down. The case was taken into Court. The Judge said the claim of the Board was certainly startling, and he threw the case out, with costs. The Control Board do not pay costs; the taxpayers pay costs. The Board went to the Court of Appeal, whereon the Master of the Bolls questioned whether their regulations really held water, and suggested they were acting ultra vires. He rebuked the Central Control Board. The Court of Appeal unanimously decided that the Liquor Control Board was wrong, and threw their case out, with costs a second time. That did not daunt the Board. They do not pay the costs; the taxpayers
pay the costs. They then went to the House of Lords, whereupon Lord Finlay said their appeal failed at every point and should be dismissed, with costs. I have been an official myself for 25 years, but this takes my breath away. Never in the whole course of my life did I see such artfully, artless misdescriptions of an unfortunate blunder, such clever covering of a retreat and masking of a defeat, as was practised by the Liquor Control Board, in their reference to this transaction in Command Paper 318.
I interrogated the Leader of the House as to what this Board, this Three-Star Board, were going on at present, as to what were the foundations on which then-authority was now based, and I asked whether instructions had been given that they were to go on as before until the Government introduced their Bill. I was told they were to go on as before until the Government introduced their Bill. I confess that that seemed to me a hard saying. I never venture to criticise anything said from the Front Bench—far be it from me; but it did appear to me that that was a hard saying, because the Prime Minister had said so plainly that this was a temporary War expedient for the successful prosecution of the War. I did think it rather a large order that after the Armistice the Board should have instructions to carry on until the Government introduced a Bill. That could be due only to pressure applied by those who, I admit, are the most proper to apply it—the abolitionist element, which I admit is very strong in this House and in this country. The Prime Minister said:—
I simply propose that we shall have power during the. War which will enable us, for instance, to close any public houses in those areas whose presence it is considered for the moment is injurious and is having a prejudicial effect upon the output of munitions. We want to increase the output which means the life of the Empire. This is a proposal merely to obtain complete control in munitions and transport areas, and the Government could not, under the Bill, conduct any business for the sale of liquor for more than 12 months after the War.
The sale of liquor goes on, yet Gretna is deserted. The Carlisle experiment, I was about to say, goes merrily on, though Heaven knows that is the wrong adjective. The Carlisle experiment proceeds. What are the powers that this Board pos-
sesses? They have power to regulate in great detail the sale of liquor in scheduled areas; they have power to close licensed premises in those areas; to confer upon themselves a monopoly, as they did in Carlisle; to acquire private property at 10 days' notice, which they did and had to disgorge. They can invent a new category of crimes, and they have the power by a stroke of the pen to over-ride the Imperial Parliament. They spread this power over 38,000,000 of the population, carefully excluding the country of my hon. Friends opposite, Ireland. Did they make careful inquiries before they extended these inquisitorial powers over prostrate localities? Not at all. Their inquiries were of the most perfunctory description. Local representatives of an honest, honourable trade were generally excluded. Take the county of Hertfordshire. The County Council and the Chief Constable and the Mayor and Chairman of Petty Sessions said that there was no need, but the result was that the whole county was scheduled. In Burton-on-Trent, where the chairman of the Bench, the Licensing Justices and the Chief of Police and the Town Clerk said it was totally unnecessary, but it had no chance. Burton was too full of original sin. May I recall to the memory of hon. Members scenes which I have often witnessed here myself? Wales is a small nation and therefore at present far greater than any great nation. Full of determination and self-determination they always determined to impose Sunday closing cm Monmouthshire, which many of us resisted. The extension was always defeated in this House, but it was carried by a stroke of the pen of this inquisitorial Board.
The bona-fide traveller was a tough personality and survived many attacks, but this Board abolished him also with the stroke of the pen. Three Sundays ago I was in Nottinghamshire, and I walked for exercise twenty-four miles. I did not go out to look for drinks, but as I was on the road I had the curiosity to sec whether drinks could be got, and I never saw one place where a thirsty, footsore traveller could have got a drink in the whole of that long tramp. Think of the crimes the Board have created? A wife is not to be treated by her husband, and a publican who is convicted of an offence and fined may also have his licence cancelled. No liquor is to be
sent out without a cheque first sent—how ridiculous! At 2.30 o'clock all service of liquor is closed. I ask any hon. Member who belongs to the City of London and who knows what it is to try and get lunch there to think of the case of a man who has been working all the morning, and probably had his breakfast at half-past seven or eight o'clock in some distant suburb, and gets out to lunch at half-past two and is to be treated like a criminal if he asks for a glass of beer, and worse than all cannot get it. It is a monstrous state of things. By their Regulations a man may not buy less than a whole bottle of whisky, and that is a direct incentive to drink. Again, liquor may not be delivered except by lorry or horse. It would be comic if it were not tragic for those who suffer. I see the comic side of it as well as hon. Members, but I see the other side too. Beer, which used to be at a strength of 1052, which is not particularly strong and which was reduced during the War below 1040, is now at an average of 1044, while Ireland has now beer of a strength of 1051 and had 1047 during the War. The figure 1044 is an average, and, although brewers have power to brew up to 1052, they cannot do it because they are bound to maintain the average. I maintain it is a monstrous injustice. On one unhappy occasion, travelling in Norfolk in a very remote district, I could get nothing to cat, and for that reason and for that reason only, I tried to get something to drink. I was served with a glass of Government ale. I think it was 1020 gravity, or struggling up to 1021. I would not wish my worst enemy a more disagreeable experience. It is comic to hon. Members who laugh, but it is tragic for the sufferer and for the man who works all day and every day and wants a drink.
What has this Board been doing whose business it was to forward the making of munitions. The Prime Minister told us on the 20th of November that unless legislation is passed to perpetuate the powers of the Control Board, they would lapse, and it was therefore proposed to introduce legislation in order to deal with the matter, and which was to have "far-reaching and beneficent effects." Everybody always says that. He added that "a great measure of agreement had been achieved by Mr. Fisher." With whom?
Was it with the House of Commons? I really do not know. I submit that to be faced now, openly and avowedly, with a proposal to perpetuate the powers of this Control Board seems to me to be very far from what we were told when the House of Commons established it. The State control which is obviously foreshadowed by this Bill presumes the perfection of the Carlisle experiment and of the Gothenburg system. I do not know any details of the latter system, and far be it from me to endeavour to explain them if I did. I have been fishing in the district, and I will say this—that in no part of the world have I ever seen so many people so terribly drunk so early in the morning as in Falkenberg. I would ask hon. Members who have got these State systems on the brain to remember that the very best of the systems was the Russian system, which interfered with nobody's property and which only dealt with the rectification and sale of vodka which is to the Russian what whisky is to Scotland. All the time they improved the quality of what was drunk, unlike what we have done hero by reducing the quality by imposing a flat rate. What was the result even of the good Russian system but revolution. When at one time we are urged to nationalise the mines, then to build houses at the expense of the taxpayers, to draw unfathomed drafts from that unfathomable pocket every day, where is the money coming from for State purchase of the liquor trade? What is to become of the municipal rates, already approaching something like 20s. in the £? Mr. Gladstone, now an obsolete financier, once said, I think in regard to the acquisition of land, "If you pay for it, it is folly; if you do not pay for it, it is robbery." I say that of State purchase of the liquor trade. A project of State control must necessarily play into the hands of the Syndicalists and the Socialists, who now, since the Bolshevists have exposed the rottenness of those systems, masquerade under the well-sounding name of Nationalises.
This nationalisation which is being pressed now is a sign of the times, and another sign to which I wish to refer is an extremely sinister proof of where we stand, and that is the agitation being carried on by citizens of a great and friendly nation which is not in any way, of course, party to that agitation, an
agitation which we now understand—at least, I understand—really proceeds from the great labour employers, who think that they, by making the country dry, can screw an extra ten per cent. of work out of labour. That, I understand, is their purpose. I asked the Leader of the House whether any steps were being taken to counter this agitation, and he said "None." If it would not weary the House—and this again has never been before the House of Commons—I would beg leave to read an extract from a very short speech by one of the most famous prophets of this new system, and it will show the rank, arrogant intolerance which informs this movement, such as I cannot describe in words myself, with my limited vocabulary. This is a "funeral oration" by Dr. C. E. Locke, of Los Angeles, California, on "the death of John Barleycorn," on the bringing in of the dry law in America. He said—

Mr. HODGE: I would respectfully ask if the hon. Baronet is speaking to the Resolution on the Paper?

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I have not yet heard the quotation that was coming. It had appeared to me that the hon. Member was going a little wide of his own Resolution. However, I cannot judge the quotation until I have heard it.

Sir J. D. REES: In the course of fifteen years' service in this House, I have always understood that some latitude of interpretation of his own text was allowed to the author of a Statute or a Resolution, and I had thought that this was an occasion on which to avail myself of that licence. I did apologise to the House in case I had trespassed upon its time, and if there is any indication that I have done so, at any moment, regardless of my argument, I shall resume my seat If my right hon. Friend opposite suggested that what I am about to read is irrelevant, if he will forgive me saying so, he is quite astonishingly erroneous. I wanted—and nobody else has done this—and I do want, if I am in order, and if I have the attention of the House, to read this ridiculous oration on the death of John Barleycorn, because I think it affords an insight into a sinister and possibly successful movement that is now being carried on in this country, as to which
this House should be informed. This is the oration:
For interminable ages wicked old John Barleycorn has allured, tempted, inveigled, deceived, debauched, demented, bestialised.

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

Sir J. D. REES: I am greatly obliged to the hon. Member. It shows that my quotation is by no means superfluous. I will proceed:—
John Barleycorn is a maliguer, conspirator, liar, thief, rubber, despoiler of homes, defiler of womanhood, dehumaniser of manhood, and a bloody-handed murderer. He has dragged holy motherhood through the mire and dashed sweet babyhood against the stones. And, John Barleycorn, you are dead in America, dead in the land of the free and the home of the brave. You have been a long time alive. John, but now you are dead, and you will be a longer time dead. Let the funeral procession move hell-ward. Roll the whisky barrel down the steep descent to the lowest depths, and let the red-handed, black-hearted covtège follow their dead chieftain down into a reeking oblivion where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.
It is missionaries who preach from texts like this who are now directly and indirectly urging upon the Government the continuance of the Three-Star Chamber, and the introduction of an equally drastic Bill, and to show that what I have said is not far-fetched, I remember seven years ago opposing in this House a Scottish Liquor Bill, and now the curses have come home to roost. It is extremely likely that Scotland will be partially dry. You might very well have Rutherglen dry, and a neighbouring ward in Glasgow wet, a most extremely serious state of affairs. If 35 per cent. of a given area now, by a majority of five over half—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Baronet that this is a very long way beyond the Motion, and I must ask him to confine himself to his own Motion.

Sir J. D. REES: In deference to your ruling, Sir, I will leave that, and I should like to ask you whether I am in order in referring to the Bill which the trade itself proposes to bring in to deal with this difficulty.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The notice of Motion refers entirely to the restrictions under the Defence of the Realm Acts of the Liquor Control Board. Legislation does not come in at all.

9.0 P.M.

Sir J. D. REES: Then I will leave that, although I confess I have heard far wider departures from texts. I do submit that this House cannot properly tolerate, in time of peace, a continuance of the extraordinary powers with which the Liquor Control Board is invested, and that it should not further develop regulations as contemplated in the Gracious Speech, but should relax restrictions on the strength, the sale, and the consumption of liquor. It should not tamper with State purchase. The subject with which I have dealt is a very serious one, and if I have not dealt with it right through in an extremely serious vein, I beg the House to remember what was said by, I think, the most human of all poets, "Ridentem dicere verum Quid vetat." I have dealt with a very controversial subject. I have no doubt that a rod is in pickle for me as soon as I sit down. All I can say is, not only will I submit to chastisement with resignation, but I shall be ready to kiss the rod.

Colonel ASHLEY: In the very few remarks I wish to make in seconding this Motion, I shall confine myself almost exclusively to the first part of the Motion, which reads:
To call attention to the hardship involved in maintaining in time of peace restrictions upon liberty in respect of the consumption of liquor which were willingly tolerated in time of War.
I think this Motion is a very fitting sequel to the discussion we had on the Bill this afternoon. We were discussing then certain Regulations in regard to restrictions on individual liberty which were enacted for the purpose of the War, both under Statute and also under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and now we are discussing similar restrictions upon our liberty under the Liquor Control Board. I am sure that everybody in this House, at any rate, recognised the absolute necessity of giving the Government during the War any power that they asked to restrict individual liberty, to prevent a man drinking a glass of beer or a glass of wine, or to prevent him doing anything if the Government, who knew the position of affairs far better than any Member of this House or any individual in the country could possibly know, said it was necessary to win the War. The House gave with both hands any power for which they asked; and
almost pressed upon them powers they did not ask. Therefore, while the War was on, whether it was liquor control or any power, we of all classes, creeds and races in the Empire, willingly submitted ourselves to the dictation of a bureaucracy, not directed by the Government, but directing the Government. Now the position is entirely changed. For all domestic purposes we have been at peace for at least sixteen months, and yet we are in a position at the present moment, so far as regards what is called the liquor traffic—a description to which I always object, because it is supposed to cast some sneer on a person who drinks a glass of beer or a glass of wine—so far, I say, as regards what temperance reformers call the liquor traffic, we are living in a time of profound peace under the unfettered rule and authority of a Board who are not responsible to any Minister, so far as I can make out, or to this House at all.
The question before us this evening is whether the Government are justified in continuing the Liquor Control Board in time of peace without the sanction of Parliament? That is really what it comes to. My point is that if the Government, in their wisdom or otherwise, consider that fresh liquor regulations are necessary, they should bring in a Bill which can be discussed in this House, which has been elected on a very wide election, and then this House can give them the power, or withhold it, as they please. I do protest most vehemently—and I feel very strongly upon this subject—that I should at the present moment have the hours, during which I can get alcoholic refreshment, curtailed and regulated, that I cannot order a dozen of port wine without sending a cheque before I receive it, that I am not allowed, in fact, to do anything I like, as compared with 1914, because a Board, the names of whose members I do not even know, made regulations in time of war which are to be prolonged in time of peace. I do press this point upon the House, that it is most essential that we should now go back to the English traditions of individual liberty, unless it is controlled by an Act of Parliament passed by the representatives of the people. I wonder how many Members of this House can tell me the names of the members of the Liquor Control Board. I have not the slightest idea who they are. I know they have a Chairman, because I
see in the papers that he is about to resign his position? Who appoints them? Who answers for them in this House? There is no Minister who answers for them in this House. What control has this House over the Liquor Control Board? None at all. When I or any hon. Member puts a question, the Leader of the House answers, which means that there is no Minister responsible at all. Has the electorate had any chance of expressing its opinion?
I should like some of the hon. Members who support this Liquor Control Board to go down to some of the workmen's clubs and some of the ex-service men's clubs and listen to the remarks of the workmen and ex-soldiers about this liquor control. They are very sensible people. Their views amount to this: "We are quite content," they say, "to give into the keeping of our Member of Parliament the decision about the Liquor laws, because we can call him over the coals if he does not do what we like, but we are not going to submit, in time of peace, to government by a bureaucracy appointed by a Government that has passed away and is not responsible to the popularly elected House." Therefore, what I do ask the Minister who will reply to-night is this: On what ground, and by what right, does the Government of the day continue these despotic Regulations without consulting the House of Commons, without consulting the electorate, without having a Minister responsible to the House of Commons; and why we in this House have not been given the right to decide all about these rules and regulations, and why they should be handed over to such a body? I will not enter into the question whether it is good or bad, but if my hon. Friends opposite who are so keen on individual liberty, and on doing away with war regulations in time of peace, speak during this Debate, I hope that they will say what they think about the Liquor Control Board and the present Regulations.

Viscountess ASTOR: I shall not begin by craving the indulgence of the House. I am only too conscious of the indulgence and the courtesy of the House. I know that it was very difficult for some hon. Members to receive the first lady M.P. into the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all!"] It was almost as difficult for
some of them as it was for the lady M.P. herself to come in. Hon. Members, however, should not be frightened of what Plymouth sends out into the world. After all, I suppose when Drake and Raleigh wanted to set out on their venturesome careers, some cautious person said, "Do not do it; it has never been tried before. You stay at home, my sons, cruising around in home waters." I have no doubt that the same thing occurred when the Pilgrim Fathers set out. I have no doubt that there were cautious Christian brethren who did not understand their going into the wide seas to worship God in their own way. But, on the whole, the world is all the better for those venturesome and courageous west country people, and I would like to say that I am quite certain that the women of the whole world will not forget that it was the fighting men of Devon who dared to send the first woman to represent women in the Mother of Parliaments. Now, as the west country people are a courageous lot, it is only right that one of their representatives should show some courage, and I am perfectly aware that it does take a bit of courage to address the House on that vexed question, Drink. However, I dare do it. The hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees) is more than polite. In fact, I should say that he goes almost a bit too far. However. I will consider his proposal if I can convert him.
The issue raised by the hon. Member is really quite clear, although I admit that he did not make it as clear as I would have liked. Do we want the welfare of the community, or do we want the prosperity of the Trade? Do we want national efficiency, or do we want national inefficiency? That is what it comes to. So I hope to be able to persuade the House. Are we really trying for a better world, or are we going to slip back to the same old world before 1914? I think that the hon. Member is not moving with the times. He speaks of vexatious laws and restrictions. I quite agree with him that most laws are vexatious. When we want to go 50 or 60 miles an hour down the Bath Road it is very tiresome, when we come to a village, to have to go 10 miles an hour. Why do we have to do it? It is for the good of the community. We might kill children. He talks about the restrictions. I maintain that they brought a great deal of good to the community.
There were two gains. First, there were the moral gains. I should like to tell you about them. The convictions of drunkenness among women during the War were reduced to one-fifth after these vexatious restrictions were brought in. I take women, because, as the hon. Member has said, most of the men were away fighting. Does the House realise what that means? The convictions of drunkenness among women were reduced to one-fifth at a time when many women, thousands of them, were earning more than they had ever dreamed of earning in their lives, which generally means, so they say in industrial communities, that there is more spent on drink. Also women were going through not only a physical strain but the most awful mental tortures. Then the deaths from delirium tremens were greatly reduced. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen the tortures of delirium tremens, but it is a national gain if you can reduce them. The deaths of children from over-laying were halved. That was after these vexatious restrictions were brought in.
These are some of the gains that you can set out on paper. I could talk for five hours on the moral gains. I will not do it, but I could talk for hours on the moral gains which you cannot put on paper, they are so enormous. I am perfectly certain, if hon. Members would really stop to think, that they would not cavil at these vexatious restrictions. Already, we have lost some of these gains. The convictions among women have doubled in the last year since the restrictions have been slightly modified, and they are four times as many among men. That is something that I should like the House to think of. Think what these increased convictions mean. Just think, twice as many convictions among women! Does the House realise what that means? How I wish that I was really an orator. I would like to tell you about drink. I have as good a sense of humour as any other hon. Member, but when I think of the ruin and the desolation and the misery which drink brings into the houses of the working men and women as well as of the well-to-do, I find it a little difficult to be humorous. It was only the other day—I had been down to my constituency—that I was coming back from what they call the poorer parts of the town, and I stopped outside a public
house where I saw a child about five years old waiting for its mother. It did not have to wait long. Presently she reeled out. The child went forward to her, but it soon retreated. Oh the oaths and curses of that poor woman and the shrieks of that child as it fled from her. That is not an easy thing to forget. That is what goes on when you have increased drunkenness among women. I am thinking of the women and children. I am not so tremendously excited about what you call the freedom of the men. The men will get their freedom. I do not want to rob them of anything that is good. I only want to ask them to consider others. There is a story—no, I had better not give it. I do not really want to harrow the feelings of the House! But I do want hon. Members to think about these things. What really happens? It is a most terrible thing to talk about it. The freedom of the subject! We, the women, know, and the men know, thousands of us in the country who work amongst the slums, and in prisons and hospitals, we know where John Barleycorn, as you are pleased to call him, leads to. It is not to Paradise. It promises Heaven, and too often it leads to Hell. I will not go on, because it would not be quite fair; but I do beg hon. Members to think of these things, and when they are talking about freedom, to think of the children.
After all, the thought of every man for himself is a thoroughly materialistic doctrine. There is a doctrine of going out to look for the lost sheep; I feel somehow that that is a better spirit to go on with than to be always clamouring about the freedom of the subject. We talk about our war gains and efficiency. You talk about liquor control. What was it set up for? It was set up for national efficiency. It was not set up for temperance. It did pretty well. The War Office and the Admiralty both commended the Liquor Control Board for having greatly gained that for which it was set up. No one would call the War Office or the Admiralty Pussyfoots. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] There are several among them, but you can hardly look upon them as prejudiced Pussyfoots. In 1916 the Liquor Control Board unanimously reported that they had enormously increased efficiency by the Regulations which the hon. Gentleman opposite wants
swept away. The Liquor Board said more, and I would like hon. Members who are always talking about national efficiency and economy to think of this. I want to see whether you are in earnest about this matter or whether it is camouflage. The Liquor Control Board said that the State could not get the maximum of efficiency so long as the drink trade was in private hands. That is what they said. Why did they say so? It is simple. You cannot reconcile the interests of the State with the interests of the trade. If you could there never would have been any licensing laws; there would never have been any drink question. Why cannot you reconcile the two? I will tell you. Because, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the interests of the trade is to sell as much of its goods as possible. No one can say that is to the interest of the State. I do not blame the trade, but one must say that its interest is absolutely opposed to the interest of the State. The real lesson for the country, so far as drink is concerned, is that State Purchase gets the largest amount of progress with the least amount of unrest. That is really what is meant by our War lessons.
The hon. Member spoke of Carlisle. What was the result at Carlisle? The areas all around Carlisle, nearly every one of them, who were originally against the Liquor Control Board's acquisition of the Carlisle area subsequently asked to be taken in. That is really the result of Carlisle. I am glad the hon. Member mentioned Carlisle. I hope someone who follows will deal with all the facts and figures of Carlisle, because they are something of which to be very proud. There are certain things at Carlisle which we are not able to get anywhere else in England. That is wonderful. I could go on for hours but, as I say, having got the indulgence of the House I will not try it too far.
The hon. Baronet talks about pacifists and temperance men not being fighting men. I notice that he is a little frightened of revolutions. What makes revolutions? Reactionaries make revolutions. Then the hon. Gentleman talks about the working man. I suppose when he refers to working men he takes the broad interpretation taken by my Labour friends which interpretation includes anything from a countess to a docker. I know a good deal about the working man. I
would not insult him by telling him, so long as you can prove to him that the conditions of women and children have improved under these restrictions, that he was not willing to have them. I have never found him so. I have spent five years amongst working men in hospitals.
I admit that the country is not ripe for, and does not now want, Prohibition. The hon. Member is perfectly right there. I am not pressing for Prohibition. I am far too intelligent for that. Frankly, I say that I believe that men will get nearer the Paradise they seek if they try to get it through a greater inspiration than drink. I hope very much from the bottom of my heart that at some time the people of England will come to Prohibition. I myself believe it will come. I say so frankly. I am not frightened of saying it. I am not afraid at all of working men. I have told it to them for five years, and they know perfectly well what I think. I hope the time will come when the working man will go dry. But we are not yet ready. Do not let hon. Members deceive themselves for one minute. The working man is as good a father as any other man. Show him the figures. Show him what the Liquor Control Board has done for women and children. Tell him the truth. Do not always tell him that his liberty is being taken away, and that the rich man wants to get more work out of him. It is not true, and you know it. I am all for telling the truth, no matter how disagreeable it is. What I find is that if you care enough about people they will listen to the truth. I think the whole world is sick of lies. I believe that you have got to like men or you cannot say "Boo!" without insulting them. The hon. Member has said that he and his friends were willing during the War to put up with drink control for the purpose of winning the War. It is not true. Ever since the Liquor Control Board started the hon. Member and his friends have been kicking against it.

Sir J. D. REES: indicated dissent.

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh, yes! Oh, yes! It is you, Sir, who are deceiving, it is not I, and if is not the Liquor Control Board. All during the War when the Government and the Admiralty, and the War Office, said that the Liquor Control Board was helping efficiency and helping to win the War, what did you do in the Great War, you and your friends? No, Sir, the hon. Member and his friends
were always kicking against the Liquor Control Board. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh, yes: look in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and you will see that you were always complaining, and at the time of the nation's dire peril you were always trying to hamper the Liquor Control Board. No, yon have not got a pretty record, you and your friends. I am not saying that there were not some perfectly patriotic brewers. There were, hut I do say that there were some brewers who really were all during the War kicking against restrictions of any kind. That is perfectly true, and the hon. Member knows it himself. It is really not a pretty story. I thought the hon. Member was going to complain about the hardships of the trade, but he did not do so. I have, however, heard others do it, and I can tell you that the drink trade, in spite of its hardships, managed to profiteer to the tune of many millions out of the working men. That is what they did in the Great War. Brewery companies which were nearly ruined before the War have now got millions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, that is so, and any hon. Members can look into it and they will see it for themselves. I am not blaming them, but I think if the hon. Member and his friends are the real friends of the working men they will urge the brewers to disgorge some of their War profits.
What are they doing with their war profits? They are advertising. There are some very offensive posters put up by the brewers, but I will not deal with them, except to dwell on those which are most likely to mislead the country. There is the poster of a fine English working man pointing to a reformed public house with a beautiful cheerful fire, where it is said that he can get tea, coffee and buns. Do you think the brewing trade are going to press the sale of tea, coffee, and buns? The brewers are spending thousands of pounds to induce Parliament to let them make their public-houses more attractive and more profitable, and this in spite of the record of convictions amongst women being double and amongst men four times what they were. I do not believe that the Government or the House is going to play their game. I do not think the country is really ripe for prohibition, but I am certain it is ripe for drastic
drink reforms. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I know what I am talking about, and you must remember that women have got a vote now and we mean to use it, and use it wisely, not for the benefit of any section of society, but for the benefit of the whole. I want to see what the Government is going to do. As the House knows, I am a great admirer of the Prime Minister, and one of the reasons I have always admired him was the way he faced this vexed question of drink during the War. I know that politicians are a little frightened of the trade, and of this sort of thing, but the Prime Minister was not. He came out and said during the War that
the State could not afford to let go its hold on the trade, which had beaten them in the past.
I want the Prime Minister to remember those words when he introduces his drink Bill. He also said:
that drink was a greater enemy than the German submarine.
I want to see that the drink submarine does not torpedo the Prime Minister. I want to see whether the Prime Minister is master in his own house. I do not believe that the Prime Minister is in the strangle hold of the trade and the profiteers. It is not the trade and the profiteers who put the Prime Minister where he is. There are thousands of people who really believe in him over this drink question and they trust him. I do not know whether there are many hon. Members who feel that way, but I do, and I can tell the House that my name is legion in the country. There is a real awakening throughout the country. [Laughter.] You can laugh, but there really are people in England, and thousands of them, who want to see the country better and they are willing to give up their appetites. [An HON. MEMBER: "We all do that!"] If you all do it then you have to face this question of drink. If you want national efficiency you will have to oppose excessive drink for that alone. You know that. When labourers are intoxicated do you really get the maximum out of them?
I do ask hon. Members not to misread the spirit of the times. Do not go round saying that you want England a country fit for heroes to live in, do not talk about it unless you mean to do it. I do not
want to rob the hon. Member opposite of anything that has given him pleasure. I do not really want to take the joy out of the world, or happiness, or anything that really makes for the betterment of the world; but you know, and I know, that drink really promises everything and gives you nothing. You know it, and the House knows it, and the world is beginning to recognise it. We have no right to think of this question in terms of our appetite, and we have to think of it in something bigger than that. I want you to think of the effect of these restrictions in terms of women and babies. Think of the thousands of children whose fathers even had to put up with more than these vexatious restrictions, who laid down their lives. Think of their fatherless children. Supposing they were your children or my children, would you want them to grow up with the trade flourishing? I do not believe the House would. I do not want you to look on your lady Member as a fanatic or a lunatic. I am simply trying to speak for hundreds of women and children throughout the country who cannot speak for themselves. I want to tell you that I do know the working man, and I know that, if you do not try to fool him, if you tell him the truth about drink, he would be as willing as anybody else to put up with so-called vexatious restrictions.

Mr. CARR: Unlike the speaker who has just sat down, I must crave the indulgence of the House on this occasion. I have heard a good deal said about Carlisle and, having been born there and having spent the whole of my life there, having seen something of the experience of the Liquor Control Board in its operations there, I think that possibly it may not be inopportune if I give the House a short resume of the work of the Liquor Control Board in that area. Many hard things have been said about Carlisle, but I fancy those hard things have been said by people who have only visited the place after hours and who know very little themselves about the actual amenities or the city. It has been described as a very dreary place, but I have yet to learn that the restriction on drinking hours in public houses necessarily makes a place dreary. As a resident of Carlisle, and as one who has lived there through the War, I can say freely that Carlisle has been a much
more cheerful place and a much pleasanter place for decent people to live in than it could have been if the terrible experience of the constructional period at Gretna had not been drastically checked by the operations of the Liquor Control Board in that area. What was the experience 01 Carlisle during the war? In 1914, the convictions for drunkenness were 275. In 1917, they were 320; in 1918, they were 80; and in the first ten months of 1919, they were only 56. I think that record of drunkenness reflects the very greatest credit, not only on the system adopted in Carlisle, but on the method whereby that system was applied; and I can assure the House—and I have had this assurance from those who have visited the city—that the distribution of such liquor as they had in the public houses under the administrative scheme of the Ministry of Food was fairer in the city of Carlisle than in many other places. In fact, I have been told by visitors to the town that it was practically the only city in the country where a man could buy a bottle of whisky and take it home with him.
This question, I think, has been treated to-night with possibly an undue amount of levity. This great question is one which concerns our industrial future very intimately. I would like Members of this House to go to Carlisle and see for themselves; to mix among the working-people in Carlisle, to ask the working-man what he thinks about it. He would tell you straight what he thinks about it. Ask his wife what she thinks about it; ask the young people of the house what they think about it, and the man's daughters, too. I was amazed by the answers I got to the questions that I put to them during the election of December, 1918, when, as hon. Members will quite realise, this question of liquor control in Carlisle was one which was uppermost in the mind of the people of the constituency. I never posed before my constituents as a temperance bigot at all. I told them I was not in favour of prohibition; but I did tell them that I was in favour of very strict State control, if not of State purchase. I am not at all sure that a solution of that sort may not be the only solution possible, and that that may not be the only way by which private interests in a trade, which can only do harm to the community if that interest is enhanced and encouraged, can be eliminated. What do you find now in
Carlisle? You find no advertisements of drink there at all; you find no flaring lamps, and no gaudy paint on the outside of the public-houses. You find that those houses are minded by persons who are put in charge of them to sell food as well as drink, and the Liquor Control Board, under the advise of the Advisory Committee—which consists of representatives of every class of the community—have established in the city of Carlisle canteens, taverns, and drinking bars where every imaginable requirement of the population is met, and where men and their friends can drink and eat in decency and in comfort.
We ought to regard the Carlisle experiment, as it has been termed, not as final, but as giving us some constructive ideas in the management of the drink traffic in the future. In the first place, it has been abundantly proved that in Carlisle, under the old régime, there were just about twice as many public-houses as were really required by the community, and I cannot imagine what other process would have been equally successful with the operations of the Control Board by reducing by about 50 per cent. the number of public-houses licensed in the city. I was delighted to see that the Prime Minister expressed himself, not many weeks ago, as being very partial to the Carlisle experiment, and I do hope that the lesson learned by that experiment may not be lost to the country. We do not want efficiency and progress in the drink traffic, but we do want that what drink is sold shall be good, that it shall be reasonably cheap, that it shall show a good profit, and that it shall not be sold for the benefit of the private interests. I would like to suggest, if the cost of a scheme like this should be too high, that a Government institution like the telephones might be sold again to private interests, so that we might get some efficiency in the telephone service and that the money obtained might be utilised to purchase a big undertaking like the drink traffic. I thank the House for the attention they have given me in these few remarks, and I would like to conclude by saying that I hope that the lessons of the Carlisle experiment, much maligned though that experiment has been, will not be lost to the community, either to its men, its women or its children.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The House has listened to two speeches from Members
who have not hitherto addressed this Assembly, and I am sure we welcome those speeches. There is not a single Member of this House who does not envy me the opportunity I now seize with both hands of conveying my congratulations and, indeed, the congratulations of every hon. Member of the House, no matter what his political opinions may be, to the hon. Member who sits below the Gangway and who so worthily represents Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). It was a very brave speech. It was thoroughly informed. It was distinguished by diction which, I think, we might all at times very properly endeavour to emulate, and, above all, and this, I think, was its chief feature and its charm, it was imbued throughout with a woman's spirit in facing the gravest national danger. What I feel about it is this, that there is nothing left for me to say, because, so far as the general topic is concerned, the hon. Member most admirably covered the whole question. But I would like to emphasise one or two points which the hon. Member for Plymouth made.
It is essentially a question, as she said, of national efficiency, and whatever may be said about the liberty of the subject, all our legislation and administration is instinct with the principle that individual taste must give way to the good of the community. That is the whole basis of our Licensing Laws. Was there ever a time in the whole history, social and commercial, of this country when this House should more seriously devote itself to the consideration of a question which is doing more harm to national efficiency than any other question, and which is destroying the moral fibre of the people. While I do not for one moment depreciate the efforts of my hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution, I am glad that the hon. Member for Plymouth brought back the question to its true proportions. There was less of the jest with which this question is far too often treated in this House, and more of the real seriousness of spirit with which it must be faced. What was the expenditure on liquor even under these restrictions? On the first day the House met I expressed a certain amount of anxiety as to whether the figure which had been given to me, of £400,000,000 up to the end of the present financial year, was correct. I have made further investigation, and there seems to be little or no doubt that at the end of the financial
year that sum will represent the expenditure of this country on intoxicating liquors during the year. That is a matter of the deepest and most vital importance to us as a nation. Claims are made on our patriotism to be less extravagant, but all the while this vast sum is being poured out, and it is thoroughly non-productive so far as efficiency is concerned. It is true we get a large return by way of revenue—about 130 millions coming in from taxation, but there is no Minister of the Crown who would not gladly do away with that 130 millions if he could do away with the other expenditure as well—not one of them.
The question raised by this Resolution in a direct form is this, that all vexatious and unnecessary restraints in respect of the strength, supply and consumption of alcoholic liquors to be abolished. I welcome the first few words of the Resolution which read, "while not desiring to return to the pre-war hours of opening." But I should like to point out to the House what is happening in regard to convictions for drunkenness while these relaxations are taking place. I will take the scheduled areas in England and Wales for 1919. In the quarter January to March last year the convictions in the scheduled areas of England and Wales were 7,894; April to June, when the restrictions began to be relaxed, they amounted to 11,715; July to September, 15,880, and October to December, when there were further relaxations, the convictions for drunkenness rose to 20,214. As surely as you reduce your restrictions the index figure of convictions for drunkenness steadily marks the downward path. This is a point which I hope the House will consider, namely, whether it is wise at this juncture of the country's history to concede what my Friends the mover and seconder desire, and that is a wide and further sweeping reduction of restrictions. I do not believe, no matter what working men's clubs may say, that, it is the wish of the majority of the people of the country. It is not the wish of the women.

Sir J. D. REES: I think the right hon. Gentleman has left out of account the fact that the higher percentage of convictions came when the drinking population returned from the War.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I will deal with that at once.

Viscountess ASTOR: Take the case of women.

10.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The largest proportion of returned and demobilised men will be found in the months April to June. I will take the case of women. It is a remarkable fact that the convictions of women during the same quarters of 1919 totalled 2,514 as compared with 734 in 1918. But I do not rely on figures alone. I would appeal to the common knowledge of Members of the House. They cannot ignore these facts in view of what they see as they go about London, in face of the records of the Police Courts, and in the light of the steady rise in crime shown by the Assize Calendars, wherever you go, relaxation of restrictions, increase of crime, and reduction of national efficiency. All the statistics show it. Does this House prefer on the whole that indulgence in a personal habit should be permitted to reduce national efficiency, increase drunkenness, and make the lives of the children wretched and miserable. I was one of the first honorary secretaries of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children outside London many years ago and I know something of the sad records of the ravages of drink amongst children. Talk about liberty of the subject? Which subject? The youngest child, no matter what its parentage, is as much a subject of the Crown as the oldest, richest and most powerful man in England. I beg the House to come back to the realities of the situation, not the jests of it, amusing as those are. It has been voiced by a woman for the first time in this House but not for the last time. Many of them could tell us men what women think of these social questions and if I mistake not that would bring about a long desired change in larger branches of our social legislation.

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: I am not an expert in this matter of drink, but an ordinary humble individual. I was a little surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that crime, on account, as I understood, of the lesser amount of drink that is sold is on the decrease when the other day we were told more murders had been committed in the last month or two than ever before in short a space of time, I was exceedingly interested to listen to the speech
of my learned Friend (Mr. Carr) who spoke with authority upon the Liquor Control Board and its activities at Carlisle. I cannot myself speak of Carlisle, but I can speak with knowledge of the district surrounding it. The Carlisle Liquor Control Board experiment is not confined to Carlisle itself. It embraces a wide district, for which I am the Member. The great majority of my constituents with whom I have talked regard the experiment as exceedingly vexatious and very unnecessary and tyrannical. There are two views about this Carlisle experiment. There is the view put forward by the general manager and directors at Carlisle, whose views may be seen in print, in which they extol the profits made by the concern, point to the decrease in drunkenness—not mentioning the fact that liquor itself is much scarcer in these days—and hope that the experiment will be continued. There is another point of view—the point of view of the ordinary man, and it is this: it is not at all difficult to make a concern show a large profit when you have absolute powers of expropriation, and absolute authority to make such orders as you please, and when within a very short time you can create a monopoly in a large district. It may surprise hon. Members to know that the Board has seized or expropriated licenced premises, has turned the licensee out and—it would be comic if it were not sad—the licensee is not even allowed to take away his own photograph, or the photograph of his family which happens to be hanging on the wall unless he pays an enhanced price to the Board for it. [Viscountess ASTOR: "Oh!"] That is a fact. The Board has prided itself on making extensive alterations in certain licensed houses. True, these houses appeal more to the eye than they did formerly, but whatever may be their outward appearance they have become exquisitely uncomfortable and unsuitable for the customer.
I and my constituents look upon our selves to a certain extent as shareholders in this concern, and I trust that we are not advancing too great a claim, since it is out of our pockets partly that the sums which have been largely expended are drawn. We would like to know after all these directors' meetings, when there is to be a shareholders' meeting. There are two main reasons why a large number of
people in the district to which I refer object very strongly to this Liquor Control Board. The first is that it is State trading. The State is trading and the private individual is absolutely crushed out. That is a thing to which these people, who are perfectly harmless agriculturists, object very strongly. The history of the thing can be related in a very few words. The great munition factory at Gretna, when it was opened, necessitated the importation of a very large number of men from all over the country; men who, in their habits were given more drink and were more riotous than the inhabitants of that part of the country. The necessity for the restriction was accepted at that time, but those men are gone, and the case for the imposition of this scheme has disappeared. We say, therefore, in that part of the country, that we object very strongly to be made the one spot in this country to be tyrannised, tortured and treated in this way for the delectation of the rest of the country. We make one very reasonable claim, and that is that whatever applies to the rest of the country should apply to Carlisle and North Cumberland. Whatever Exiles, Orders or Legislation may be adopted, they should be the same for Carlisle and North Cumberland as for the rest of the country. We shall be exceedingly glad to hear from the Prime Minister that we are not to be branded as drunkards and to be experimented upon in this way, but that we are to be treated like our fellow-beings in the other counties.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: We have just heard two speeches, one representing Carlisle and the adjoining district, and one hon. Member distinctly answered all the charges that were made by the Mover of the Resolution. The last speaker asked when were the shareholders to have a voice in what he called the Carlisle experiment. I am quite sure that it will not be wise for any one Member in this House to claim to speak more than another for one section of the community. Although I am a member of the Labour party, I have never pretended that other Members who were not Labour Members do not represent the working man just as I do. Every Member of this House who represents a working class constituency must in the very nature of things be returned by working class votes. I think that it is equally
unfair to suggest, as the Seconder of the Motion did, that we who defend the Liquor Control Board are afraid to go among the working classes and express our views. I myself am a member of the Liquor Control Board. The sins of that Board were pointed out to the workman in my constituency and by a majority of 12,000 they gave expression to what they thought about it.
I wish to come to something more recent in Carlisle. The Mover of the Resolution said that the Carlisle experiment was conducted at the expense of the ratepayers, that money was taken out of the public purse, and he said that dinners were supplied cheaper than could be supplied by anyone else out of the public purse. I challenge the hon. Member or any other hon. Member in this House to say that the Carlisle experiment cost the British taxpayer a solitary copper. The right hon. Gentleman who replies for the Government can, if he chooses, give the figures. But I know that it never cost the State a copper, but showed a net profit on the total expenditure of 15 per cent. But we want to deal with this question from a higher standpoint than that of a mere balance, because it is urged by my hon. Friend that the people in Carlisle are themselves so disturbed and dissatisfied at this moment that they are all pleading for an alteration in this method.

Major C. LOWTHER: I expressly said that I was not connected with Carlisle in any way, but with North Cumberland.

Mr. THOMAS: But the hon. Member knows perfectly well that in his own constituency the Liquor Control Board has taken over as well, and, therefore. I will deal with both. Three weeks ago there was called in Carlisle a conference of the organised workers in Carlisle and the district, including my hon. Friend's constituency, as he knows, and the summons to that meeting asked the trade unions, who during all the War period had been the subject of such restrictions and have been suffering all the hardships that have been pointed out, to send delegates to the Conference so that they might express their own opinion after this long experience of public ownership in Carlisle. That conference was called only two months ago. I myself presided at it. The result was,
that 220 delegates from Carlisle and district were present and 219 placed on record their appreciation of the change in the liquor trade since the Government experiment was undertaken, and asked for a continuance of that experiment.
That is a resolution passed less than three months ago—a resolution of which both my hon. Friends know, because there was a controversy over it, and in that controversy both of them took part. If we are going to talk about the working men, and if it suits hon. Members to get up and plead in the interests of working men, at least let them take some notice of the working men in those particular constituencies. And let us not forget this fact. There were during the War wicked attempts made to engineer a strike; so bitter did the controversy become, and so hostile did the trade become, that they actually sought to engineer a strike in Carlisle against the restrictions. As a member of the Board I was threatened by my own Union that unless these restrictions were removed the men were going to strike. Those are the facts as they came to the Board. The Board asked my advice. I said that if the railwaymen really wanted to strike because, in the national interest, these restrictions had been put on, then I was sorry for the railwaymen. But I did not think they would strike. We went into it, and the result was that there was not only no strike, but that it was proved that the whole thing was engineered as an attack upon the Liquor Control Board.
I submit that no Member of this House, and no party, would disagree with a Motion which says quite distinctly that the Liquor Control Board should now be abolished. I would vote for that Motion. But if that carries with it, and those who move it intend that it shall carry with it, the removal of all the restrictions and the throwing away of all the experience we gained during the War, then most certainly I at least would not vote for such a Motion. Let us for a moment examine what were the facts responsible for the calling into existence of the Liquor Control Board. The Government came to the conclusion that the maximum efficiency was not being given. The statistics of drunkenness for the month prior to the calling into existence of the Board showed a weekly average
for males of 1,287 in the Metropolitan area alone. The week before the Armistice that was reduced to 173. I quite admit it would be a reasonable argument to say that there was a large number of men out of the country, but I want hon. Members to be fair, and equally to recognise that there was the same number of women in the country. For women the figure reached before the Liquor Control Board came in was 718 the weekly average of convictions. We had succeeded in reducing that to 78 prior to the Armistice. To-day the figure is 513 of women alone weekly. In other words, when we are talking about losing the advantages of experience gained during the War, unfortunately we have already lost most of it.
I submit that we ought not to consider this question as though we were discussing the selling of soap. Either there is a moral aspect of the question or there is not. If this House of Commons is satisfied with unlimited drink, an unlimited supply and drunkenness galore merely to provide revenue for the Treasury—if that is the policy, there can be no argument against pushing our wares just as we like. But I say we have got to consider in connection with this question, not only the conditions and the moral aspect of the question, but we have got to realise that, in the great struggle for the future, efficiency is more necessary than ever. I am sure the House will agree that at least one contribution in this Debate, and which we all welcomed, that from the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) showed at least the human side, and has enabled the House to realise that, after all, the women of this country do consider this question. I frankly admit that there are differences in every party in the House with regard to this question; I do not think any party is united about it; but I do believe that there are men in all parties who do realise and fully recognise the evil of the drink traffic. I am not opposed personally to Prohibition, but I am equally satisfied that Prohibition could not carry in this country, and I say that with some knowledge of the working classes. I am equally satisfied that it would be unwise, and indeed it would be dangerous, to go back to the old state of affairs. I do not think that anybody with any knowledge of the question would welcome that. I was always opposed to
the State purchase of drink. I was an opponent of it prior to going on to the Liquor Control Board, but I am equally satisfied now that it is the only solution of the problem. No one who is intimate with the political, social and religious life of the community will dispute for a moment the remark made by an eminent statesman years ago when he said that unless we can control the drink traffic it will control us. I believe that the Prime Minister has a golden opportunity at this moment to deal with this question.
I believe that the only real way to deal with it is by State purchase, and that would give real local option, because, when hon. Members denounce Carlisle, are they aware that over 50 per cent. of the revenue at Carlisle, is taken in foodstuffs? As my hon. Friend said, you can get a good meal at Carlisle, and the result is that instead of men and women going into the public-houses and continuously drinking they are encouraged to have other refreshments, food and all kinds of things, and does any hon. Member assume for a moment that the mere booming of the reformed public-house for tea and a bun is what the brewers themselves desire? It is not only camouflage, it is sheer hypocrisy. It is for all those reasons that I do not think we are justified in condemning the Liquor Control Board for what it did during the War. On the contrary, I believe it rendered great service. I am equally satisfied that a body elected as that body was, responsible as that body was, is not suited for peace time. I am equally certain that the Government ought themselves immediately to introduce legislation dealing with this question. I hope they will deal with it immediately and drastically, and I hope that they will keep in mind that drink itself does clog the wheel of progress. Let the Government, if the Prime Minister is as bold as he formerly was, realise that this is a golden opportunity, not only to do something for ourselves, but to do something for those who will follow.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Whatever may be the merits of this Resolution, it has at any rate this merit. It has elicited from the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) a speech of brilliant and vivid eloquence, which
has obtained general acceptance from every quarter of this House. There is no assembly which welcomes more readily the courageous expression of views which are earnestly felt, and I venture to think that it is appropriate that the first speech delivered in this historic assembly by a woman should have bean delivered upon a topic in which the interests of women are so closely involved. As to the Resolution itself, I confess that if I confine my attention to the terms in which it is drafted, I find very little with which I am disposed to quarrel. The Mover of the Resolution admits that he has no desire to return to the pre-War hours of opening licensed premises. Neither does the Government. Nor, again, does the Government desire the continuance of restraints and restrictions, which are purely vexatious and unnecessary, and for which adequate grounds cannot be found, based upon the broadest considerations of public welfare.
I know well that the hon. Baronet is not the man to go fox-hunting without desiring to come home with the brush, and when he puts a Resolution down on the paper, I am well aware that we are to expect a light shower of ironic darts directed against the flanks of the Government. But what is the sum and substance of the hon. Baronet's crticism? What is the head and front of the Government's offence? It is this, and this only: In the hon. Baronet's opinion, the Liquor Control Board has outstayed its welcome. The hon. Baronet and the other noted apostles of human liberty who support it, have been longing for a funeral that has not taken place. They have all my sympathy and my commiseration. Here are these hon. Gentlemen standing month after month with their mourning bands and their sable gloves, and their handkerchiefs glistening with tears, waiting for the hearse which is not making its appearance. The Liquor Control Board still survives. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am willing to admit at once that the Government did desire to bring the Liquor Control Board to an end last year. I will admit that nobody was more anxious to surrender his functions than the Chairman of the Board, whose distinguished services to this country deserve a meed of recognition in this House and in the nation at large. The Liquor Control
Board was desirous of terminating its functions, and the Government was anxious to bring those functions to an end. It may perhaps be asked, why is it then that the Liquor Control Board still continues? I can give the answer in a few words. The Government came to the conclusion—and I think in this it has the support of public opinion—that it would be unwise to terminate the Liquor Control Board before a measure could be introduced embodying the experience which had been collected by reason of the ad ministration of the Board.
The hon. Baronet has assumed that the Government has been subjected to the pressure of Prohibitionists, and I think it was a reasonable inference from his very witty speech that this pressure had been recently applied with great effect-There is no substance in that allegation-from the very first moment of the establishment of the Board in 1915, the present Prime Minister, who then held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, was well aware that it might be necessary at the conclusion of the War for Parliament to take into consideration the experience which had been gathered through this experiment, and that Parliament ought to be given a chance of surveying the whole field of temperance legislation. Let me call to the attention of the House a little passage of arms which occurred in the Debate of the 11th of May, 1915, when the Defence of the Realm Act (Amendment No. 2) Bill was being considered in Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was maintaining that it would be desirable that the powers of the Liquor Control Board should be continued for a period of 12 months after the termination of the war, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) moved that for twelve months six months should be substituted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued that it would be hopeless for anyone to endeavour to get a Bill dealing with a matter of this kind through in less than twelve months:
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: What is the need for it? Why not return to the status quo?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know that you would. Parliament ought to be free to consider that, and why should not Parliament be free to do so? You should not tie the hands of Parliament as to what ought to be done at the end of the term. Surely, Parliament ought to be allowed to consider what is to he done in these cases.
There may be all sorts of things which may arise as a result of an experiment of this kind, and no one could guarantee that a Bill of the kind within less than 12 months, because there would be so many more urgent matters to deal with."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 11th May, 1915. Vol. 1xxi., Col. 1516.]
That is a remarkable instance of the Prime Minister's prescience. What he foresaw in 1915 has exactly come to pass. When I am asked "Why did not the Government introduce a Bill in the last Session dealing with this matter?" I reply that there were more urgent matters to consider, and any Member of this House who casts his mind back upon the protracted and continuous labours of last Session, and who reflects upon the stocks of Statutes that were passed must be convinced that it would have been quite impossible for the Government to have introduced a Bill dealing with the liquor traffic. Indeed, it is not suggested even by the hon. Baronet that we should return exactly to the status quo.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why not?

Mr. FISHER: What does the hon. Baronet's Resolution say? The hon. Baronet says that he does not desire to return to the pre-war hours of the opening of licensed premises. It seems to be a very simple proposition to pass a Bill dealing with the hours of the opening of licensed premises, but as soon as you begin to look into it, it becomes far less simple. You cannot adequately deal with licensed premises without at once raising the thorny and controversial question of clubs. My experience of the licensing question is, that as soon as you begin to touch one part of it you are involved in the whole problem. The question must be considered as a whole if it is to be considered scientifically and dealt with adequately. I do not think that the House would really have found it satisfactory if the Government had come down here with a brief measure abolishing the Liquor Control Board and having a few Regulations with respect to the opening of licensed premises.
There is another reason why it has been impossible to return to the status quo. A great deal has been said in the course of this discussion as to the merits and demerits of what is known as the Carlisle experiment. We have had a most admirable speech, if he will allow me to say so,
from the hon. Member for Carlisle, and a very interesting contribution from the hon. and gallant Member for Cumberland. What are the arguments of these two hon. Members? One speech extolled the result of the experiment at Carlisle, the other depreciated it. Is it not a natural inference to say that this is an experiment which deserves to be closely and carefully watched? An experiment of that which even if we take the lowest estimate, a good deal can and has been said. It is certainly an experiment of a very interesting character which should not be abandoned suddenly and without due consideration. If I may make one suggestion to the hon. and gallant Member for Cumberland—and it applies not only to what he said but what was said by other hon. Members—I think that the actions of the Liquor Control Board and its policy have been to some extent unfairly prejudiced by the necessity imposed on this country during the War of unduly contracting the supplies of beer, and unduly lessening its gravity. The policy of the Liquor Control Board was to some extent prejudiced by the Food Controller's orders which were absolutely essential, having regard to the food situation and the tonnage situation at the time they were imposed. I suggest that many of the criticisms that may be passed by the countrymen of the, hon. and gallant Gentleman upon the Liquor Control Board in the Carlisle area may be rooted in the very general and not unnatural dissatisfaction felt at the great shortage of supplies during the years 1917–18.
I think I have given to the House—I hope I have—two sufficient reasons why it is impossible to return to the status quo. What is the alternative? Surely there is only one alternative; that is a Bill. If there is to be a Bill, then let that Bill be carefully drawn and considered. Let us deal with it in a judicial temper. Let us attempt to deal with a great social malady in the spirit of the scientific doctor confronted with a terrible disease. Do not deal with it as a partisan but with something of the great patriotic spirit which animated us during the War when we are confronting these great social problems. I beseech hon. Members not to pass a partial judgment upon the work of the Liquor Control Board. The hon. Gentleman very truly observed that the Liquor Control Board is armed with formidable powers susceptible of great
dispute, but I think it ought to be generally realised that these powers, large and certainly excessive for peace times, have been used with great wisdom and temper during the War, and there was very little antagonism against the action of the Liquor Control Board until it became necessary on account of the food supply to control the quantities and the gravity of beer. It is a most grotesque representation to imagine the Liquor Control Board as a body of bureaucrats anxiously clinging to the last shred of their powers, because they are a patriotic body working without remuneration, who undertook a most difficult task during the War and one which exposed them to the criticism of the strongest vested interest in this country. I contend with all gravity that they deserve the unstinted thanks of this House. The hon. Baronet said that he was anxious for the demise of the Liquor Control Board, but I can assure him that that will not be long delayed, because we have in preparation a Bill which will bring that Board to an end. I hope that that will satisfy the soul of the hon. Baronet and his friends, and that they will give to that measure when it appears their unstinted, enthusiastic and undivided support.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is an unfortunate thing in this country that a great many people speak about things of which they have had no opportunity of learning very much, and they do not realise the priceless advantage of a pint of beer to those who perspire at their work. What we have heard to-night is something like old maids advising nursing mothers as to when they ought to put the child to the breast. It is just like Lord Haldane, who is a bachelor, lecturing people as to how they should educate their children. Many of those who talk indirectly about Pussyfootism, and say that the country is not ripe for prohibition, are working up to it all the time. I should like some of them to try their hand at mucking a cattle boat in Glasgow harbour. I should like Lord D'Abernon, who never sweated in his life under these circumstances, not to be able to get a pint of beer and a pie, and I wonder how he would like it.

Mr. W. THORNE: You have not done much of it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes, I have, and that is what taught me the value of a pint of beer. Have those ladies who talk in this way ever spent six months over the wash-tub? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] If they had done this amid the heat and the moisture they would be glad of a half of whisky. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw, withdraw!"] There is nothing to withdraw. I am speaking for the labouring population, whom I understand.

Viscountess ASTOR: What about the children?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have worked hard and know what the struggle of labour is, and I know what it is to come home with a tired body and with nerves broken down, which you polite people know nothing about, but talk from the outside. These are the tired people who are absolutely worn down, the miners coming from the pit with their lungs full of dust.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: A libel on the working man! Give him wholesome food and good housing he does not want drink.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: You Labour men have forgotten what sweat is.

Mr. W. THORNE: I have never seen many lawyers sweat anyhow.

Mr. ROBERTSON: rose, [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: This discussion is becoming intemperate.

Mr. W. THORNE: Provocation, Mr. SPEAKER.

An HON. MEMBER: The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten) never sweated in his life.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes. I have laboured in the docks, and I know what toil is.

Mr. RAFFAN: Did you meet no teetotallers there?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Half of them do not know what hard toil is. That is why they approve of the Liquor Control Board Regulations, which were entire camouflage of the failure of the Asquith Government to provide enough munitions. That was all that happened. They had to look for somebody to blame for that.
They blamed the liquor trade. There was no foundation in it at all—no substance in it. One hon. Member, for instance, spoke about deaths from delirium tremens. What about the deaths from influenza in the last two years? How many poor people were killed because of the Liquor Control Regulations?

Mr. RAFFAN: Not one.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Alcohol was necessary to keep the hearts of these people beating. Thousands of them were killed. Nothing could be worse than that. You talk, the Government talk, the Prime Minister talks about the lure of drink, and the right hon. Gentleman told us that the women's vote is going to go to Prohibition. What about the lure of dress? There are millions and millions of pounds spent every year in this country on the bodily decoration of females, and many women spend their husbands' wages on their personal decoration instead of on food for their households and their children. Many young women are led into Jives of shame through the lure of dress.

Viscountess ASTOR: What about drink?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The desire for dress amongst women is stronger than the desire for drink amongst men. What I deprecate is the mixing up of this question of liberty with the interests of the trade. I am not in the least concerned with the interests of the liquor trade. They play battledore and shuttlecock with the Temperance party, which has made millions for the Trade during the last few years. The Local Veto Bill in Scotland, for instance, provides only for the status quo, decrease or prohibition, but there is no provision for an increase in the facilities, although some ordinary citizens may desire it. They do not, however, get a chance, because the brewers and distillers do not themselves want an increase. They are aware that if there were an increase their monopoly might be injured, and they therefore join hands with the Temperance party. It is hypocrisy. The Temperance party is the handmaiden of the liquor trade. We have heard from the hon. Member for Plymouth some pitiable stories in regard to children standing outside public-houses, but if you went to the U.S.A. you would find far more pitiable stories about women waiting out-
side places where they sell cocaine and wood alcohol.

Viscountess ASTOR: That is not true.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: There were hundreds of citizens of America poisoned by drinking wood alcohol a little while ago. That was a shocking state of affairs, but it was said by the temperance advocates: "Look at the thousands of people in England who died from over-indulgence in ordinary alcohol." It might just as well be said by a person who deprived children of ordinary milk and gave them typhus-infected milk, and was blamed for so doing: "Look at the number of children who died from tuberculosis." The fact is there is no reasoning with that party. They are the fanatical successors of the Spanish Inquisition; they are torturers. They have no other ideals; they are the most dangerous section of the community. I know a case of a man who saved the lives of his two children who were suffering from influenza by giving them considerable doses of alcohol. He said to a man whose wife was suffering from it, an extreme temperance reformer, that he should give her similar treatment.

Mr. W. THORNE: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: This man belonged to the extreme type of temperance reformer, and he said that, rather than adopt such a measure, he held the view that life was not worth saving, and his better half died. That, no doubt, is an extreme case, but that is the sort of feeling which has poisoned the whole moral and metaphysical atmosphere of the people of this country, and there is nothing more dangerous than that. I noticed that a Noble Lord recently wrote to the papers in favour of prohibition. He wrote from Brooks' Club, St. James's. Here you have a leader of Temperance Reform writing from a co-operative public house in favour of prohibition, although apparently he has not the courage to take steps to ensure prohibition of liquor in his own club.

Mr. SEXTON: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be-now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his
assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If you interfere with the social habits of the people and with their personal liberties you are doing them far bigger injury than depriving them of their wealth—

Sir J. D. REES: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: And you will bring about an outbreak in this country similar to that you have had in Russia, where they cry, "Here's to the poor Czar: he abolished good vodha, and lost; his life" I speak against this resolution; because—

It being Eleven of the Clock the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding on Amendment proposed on further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, resumed:—

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

It being after Eleven of the Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir. E. Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.